RENUBALA BEHERA Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS call in question legality of order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') claiming maintenance from the opposite party No.1.

(2.) BACKGROUND in which the said application was made by the petitioners, according to them, is as follows: Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 entered into marital bond in May, 1990. They were blessed with a child, petitioner No.2. On account of several discords there was no marital bliss. Relationship was so strained on account of various harassments and ill -treatments inflicted both physically and mentally on the petitioner No. 1 that it was impossible for her to stay with the opposite party No.1. To add to the misery of petitioners, the opposite party No.1 though possessed of sufficient means refused and neglected to maintain them. Petitioner No.1 as a result of torture inflicted on her both mentally and physically became psychologically wrecked, and depends solely on the alms of charity extended by others. She knocked at the door of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack along with her minor child for protection. The parties were called by learned Judge, Family Court, who wanted to bring about reconciliation. But the relationship was so cracked that he found it impossible to settle the matter. Petitioners claimed Rs. 600/ - per month, inter alia stating that opposite party No.1 was engaged in Government service and his monthly salary is around Rs. 2500/ - per month, in addition to substantial agricultural income. Learned Judge, Family Court held that Rs. 300/ - to both the petitioners with effect from the date of order would meet the ends of justice. He gave an alternative direction in case opposite party No.1 deposits Rs. 25,000/ within six months from the date of order, same can be invested and interest thereon can be adjusted towards maintenance amount He also concluded that petitioner No.1 was able bodied lady and she can also earn something for supplementing the aforesaid sum of Rs. 300/ - per month.

(3.) I shall first deal with question whether total amount which can be granted as -maintenance in respect of various claimants is restricted to Rs. 500/ -. This controversy has been settled at rest by the apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others1. The words "in the whole" occurring in Section 125 of the Code cannot be interpreted to mean that total amount for wife, child, mother and father together cannot exceed Rs. 500/ -. What it plainly means is that Court cannot grant more than Rs. 500/ - for each one of the claimants. "In the whole" in the context means taking all items of maintenance together, not all members of family put together. This interpretation accords with social justice and semantic and more than all is obvious.