VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's mother Ganga Devi had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son making requisite averments. On this application, the learned trial Court vide order dt. 27.10.94 passed an order for interim maintenance, which order was confirmed in revision by order dt. 13.9.95. Thereafter the learned trial court after completing the necessary trial, vide order dt. 12.9.97 passed the final order awarding a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife Ganga Devi, and identical sum to the petitioner minor son. This amount was payable w.e.f. 31.3.94 (application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on 21.3.94) and directed that whatever amount may have been paid by way of interim maintenance shall be adjusted, and that the amount of maintenance payable to the son shall be payable till his attaining majority. Against this order a revision was filed wherein the case was remanded vide order dt. 4.1.99. The main consideration for remand was that the learned trial Court should pass detailed order and give appropriate finding with respect to income of the husband and on that basis should pass a proper order. After remand the learned trial court again passed the order on 15.5.99 and again accepted the application for maintenance and awarded the maintenance to the above extent w.e.f. 21.3.94.

(2.) AGGRIEVED of this order the non-petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge which has been decided by the impugned order dt. 20.12.2000, and the learned Sessions Judge noticed that the wife Ganga Devi has already expired, that after considering the contention of the non- petitioner, rather offer of the non-petitioner to keep the petitioner with him, negatived the contention and upheld the impugned order by recording the following finding at page-3" (Ve rnacular matter omitted.)

(3.) IT is this part of the order only which is assailed by the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the learned Revisional Court itself also found that the learned trial Court was right in making award of maintenance to the extent of Rs. 500/- to the wife as well as to the petitioner, there was no occasion or authority for the learned Revisional Court to order that since wife has already expired no amount need be paid. It is contended that in the totality of circumstances in which the wife had been neglected, simply because she could sustain herself after filing application for maintenance by whatever means (beg, borrow or steal), the non-petitioner cannot claim any divided (dividend ?) on that count, simply because she could not sustain any more and expired. It is contended that in any case when the liability of the husband has been finalised, the amount became an asset of the deceased mother capable of being inherited by the petitioner as a legal heir under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Likewise regarding the maintenance of the petitioner, it is contended that there was no occasion whatever for directing the maintenance to be payable only from December, 2000 instead of w.e.f. 21.3.1994 as ordered by the learned trial Court.