GHISU LAL Vs. RESHAM BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C, seeks reversal of the orders passed by the Court below regarding maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant has been directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Ra. 300/ - p.m. to the non -applicant.

(2.) THE object behind the benevolent provision of Section 125 Cr. P.C. in to prevent the vagrancy of destitute women and provide speedy remedy A woman left in lurch by her man, if suddenly consigned to a position where the has then less in life. In such cases, law must effectively come to rescue and lend helping hand to combat destitution. In such a predicament those who have thus less in life should have more in law. In 1991(1) MPWN, 241, K. Vimla v. Verraswamy, the Apex Court held as under ;

(3.) THE two courts below on proper evaluation of evidence have concluded that the applicant having sufficient means neglected to maintain the non -applicant; that the non -applicant is the wife left to woes and is unable to maintain herself; that sporadic work fetching meagre wages, born of necessity could not out look or cumber the legal liability of the husband; that the amount granted, in an age of soaring prices and roaring problems, cannot be categorised as excessive; that the applicant is well placed in life to meet the liability. The second marriage is admitted. The claim is by the first wife. Explanation to Section 125 reads as under :