Anand vs Mange Ram

M.L. Singhal, J.

One Mange Ram son of Sobhat son of Daatan, resident of village Bakhtawarpur, Tehsil and Distt. Sonepat instituted application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against his grandson Anand son of Ram Chander son of Mange Ram, resident of village Bakhtawarpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/ per month, on the allegations that he is an old man aged 80 years unable to maintain himself, while Anand is raising an income of Rs. 10,000/ per month by cultivating land. He made an application for the grant of interim maintenance in these proceedings.

Anand son of Ram Chander son of Mange Ram contested this application. Vide order dated 4.9.1996 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat allowed him interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/ per month.

Aggrieved from the order dated 4.9.1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, Anand son of Ram Chander knocked the door of the court of Session in revision. Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat declined the revision vide order dated 14.8.1997.

Aggrieved from the order dated 4.9.1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat and the order dated 14.8.1997 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, Anand has knocked the door of this Court through this Crl. Misc. Petition No. 20837M/1997. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat has displayed absolute ignorance of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. when she awarded interim maintenance to the grandfather against his grandson. She ought to have known that a grandson is not liable to maintain his grand father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not envisage any such right in the grandfather against the grandson.

Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat did not lag behind and showed equal ignorance of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. while dismissing this revision. Addl. Sessions Judge has behaved like an autocrat while observing that the learned Chief Judicial MagistratecumCivil Judge shall act in accordance with the observations made in this order and proceed with the petition as if it had been filed under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and decide the case in accordance with law by exercising civil jurisdiction. He forgot that the procedure of trial of civil suits is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and civil suits are tried by civil judges. Trial of applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and they are tried by Judicial Magistrates of the Ist Class. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maximum maintenance that can be awarded is Rs. 500/ per month whereas there is no such embargo placed on the civil court in civil suit filed under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as follows :

"If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegatimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct."

It is clear from a bare glance at the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. that a person is not bound to maintain his grandfather or grandmother. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the grandfather what to talk of granting him maintenance. So this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accepted and order dated 4.9.1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat is set aside and the order dated 14.8.1997 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat is also set aside. Copy of this order be sent to Dr. Neelima Shangla, formerly Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat at her place of posting. Copy of this order be also sent to Sh. Virender Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Both of them are directed to go through the provisions of law before passing any order thereunder and not to transgress the limits of law and behave like autocrats in a democratic set up where rule of law prevails and not the whims and fancies of individuals as courts are meant to administer law strictly within the letter of law and within its four corners.