Kailash Chand vs Vandna And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The respondents are wife and minor children of the petitioner. The respondents moved an application against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) for grant of maintenance to them. The application was instituted on 30.11.2019. The petitioner contested the application and filed reply through his learned counsel. On 24.12.2021, the petitioner made a statement on oath before the learned Family Court that he would give Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month each to his minor children (respondents No.2 to 4) as interim maintenance till the decision of the main petition. This statement was accepted by respondent No.1 on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children. Accordingly, learned Family Court passed following order on 24.12.2021:-

“Present: Applicant No.1 Vandana in person with Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld. Counsel.

Respondent in person with Sh. Bhim Singh, Ld. Counsel.

Respondent made a statement, placed on file that he would pay to applicant No.1 maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.500/- per month each to applicants No.2 to 4 till decision of main application. The statement of applicant No.1 Smt. Vandana for herself and on behalf of minor applicants also recorded whereby she accepted the offer. The respondent is accordingly directed to pay maintenance till decision of main application. The application for interim maintenance is accordingly disposed of. Be tagged with main case file. Put up for consideration on 23.02.2022.”

The above order has been assailed by the petitioner in the instant petition. The ground urged for challenging the impugned order is that the petitioner was mentally retarded person and not capable of comprehending the facts.

The ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained in the instant petition on account of following reasons:-

3(i). The petitioner has himself been contesting the application moved by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.PC. The petitioner had himself engaged a counsel, who represented him in the learned Family Court. The documents appended alongwith the petition reflect that the petitioner has been contesting the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC in his own capacity and not through any Court Guardian/Natural Guardian/Next Friend etc. The petitioner is aged 39 years and had given the statement on oath before the learned Trial Court on 24.12.2021 regarding making monthly payments of interim compensation to the respondents. It is on the basis of his statement that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court. The order was passed in presence of learned counsel representing the petitioner.

3(ii). Even after the passing of the impugned order, several orders have been passed in the matter by the learned Trial Court, as is apparent from the documents placed on record. Admittedly, no such plea was taken by the petitioner before the learned Family Court that he is mentally retarded and therefore, be allowed to contest the ongoing proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC through the Court Guardian/Natural Guardian/Next Friend etc.

In such circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court. In fact, present petition filed by the petitioner through his mother cannot be said to be maintainable considering the ongoing proceedings before the learned Family Court, wherein the petitioner is defending himself in his personal capacity.

Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate remedy before appropriate Court in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance(s).