SONIBAI Vs. MADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the wife and two minor daughters, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming twin reliefs of (a) enhancement in the quantum of maintenance allowance and, (b) partial reversal of revisional order 10 as to make the allowance payable from the date of application (21 -7 -86) instead of order (5 -1 -90). However, this petition was admitted on the limited point of the date only as is , luclent by order dated 30 -7 -91 and in view of this position, the question as regards the enhancement stands foreclosed.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix is rather jejune. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - p m. on the ground of cruelty and contract of marriage with another woman bearing name as Munnibai. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar in MJC No. 25/88 ordered on 5 -1 -90 the non -applicant husband, to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs 100/ - for each of the three applicants, thus, total Rs. 300/ -, from 21 -7 -86, the date of application. On a revision being filed by the non -applicant against the aforesaid order, the IVth Add). Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Cri. Revision No 33/90 ordered on 1 -5 -1991 that the allowance, granted by the Court below shall be payable from the date of the order, The Criminal Revision No. 50/90 preferred by the applicants had, however, proved to be vainful as it wax dismissed by the composite order rendered in both these revisions. The question falling for consideration in this Court thus, is whether the revisional Court was justified in modifying the order as above.

(3.) SECTION 125 of the Cr.P.C. envisages a swift and cheap remedy and is intended to serve a social purpose. It is in accord with Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India which are indicators of an urge to protect the. weaker sections like women and children. In fact the constitutional sweep becomes still wider when Article 51A, inserted by 42nd amendment effective from 3 -1 -77, imposed a duty on all citizens to renounce practice derogatory to the dignity of women. The neglect or refusal to maintain, to my mind, is a direct onslaught on the dignity and needs to be anaesthetized. The obvious object is to compel the erring husband to perform his duty and discharge his normal obligation towards wife and children.