NARU KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 -State and learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.06.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2008, whereby the appeal of the appellant -petitioner was dismissed, upholding the order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Case No. 240/2007, whereby learned Trial Court directed the petitioner -husband to pay Rs. 1,000/ - to Respondent No. 1 -wife and Rs. 500/ - each to Respondents No. 3 and 4 -sons, total Rs. 2,000/ - per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the complaint.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner -husband, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 and perused the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, I am of the view that the provision is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man -to maintain his wife and children. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The matter is still pending before the learned Trial Court and the parties will be free to lead their evidence before the learned Trial Court at later stage, as at this stage, only interim maintenance has been granted to the respondent -wife and children by the both the Courts below. In my considered view and in the conclusion, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner being husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife and children. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition, having no merit, is, hereby, dismissed.