SINIA KHURANA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are wife and child of the respondent No. 2 herein. According to the averments made in this petition, they have been deserted by the respondent No. 2. Petitioners, in these circumstances, have filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which came up for preliminary hearing on 17.7.2006. The Court of learned MM has issued notice to the respondent No. 2, returnable on 25.5.2007, i.e., to a date which is more than 10 months after the first hearing. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 and her Counsel pleader for a shorter date, but the learned Magistrate refused to accede to this request of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

(2.) No doubt, the Magistrates are burdened with heavy work and, therefore, normal ly it becomes difficult for the Magistrates to give short dates. However, that would not justify issuing of notice for a date after 10 months. At the same time, nature of particular proceedings have to be borne in mind and if in a given case urgent hearing is required, preference is to be given to such case and short dates are to be given. In this case the petitioners state that they are destitutes and without any means of livelihood. It is for this reason that they have filed the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. they have also prayed for fixation of interim maintenance to get immediate support. Such a plea of the petitioners has to be adjudicated upon by the Courts without any delay and as expeditiously as possible.

(3.) No doubt, a Judge is supposed to decide the case before him/her according to law. Article 14 of the Constitution of India also stipulates equality before law and there cannot be any discrimination on the ground of sex, caste, religion, etc. Justice is open to all and nobdoy is disputing that. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that it does not happen in practice; or at least that positive step must be taken to ensure that there is real equality and fairness for all in the justice process. How a Judge arrives at the decision that is the decision making process and how a Judge treats those whose come before him/her are the factors which are as important as the decision itself. Whereas all cases need to be decided expeditiously as speedyjustice is a part of 'right to life' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, [see Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360]. Such a need would be much more in the cases of socially and/or economically backward people and the cases raising social issues. The case of destitude wife/child seeking maintenance would definitely fall in this category. Therefore, in a case like this, issuing the notice on the preliminary hearing for a date after 10 months would itself be travesty of justice. More so, when the law also mandates that this aspect has to be considered and to be decided within a period of two months.