Paras Nath Singh vs 2nd A.C.J. (J.D.) and Others

Ashok Kumar Roopanwal, J.—This application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved for setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.93 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria in case No. 1131/92 Smt. Anari Devi and Ors. v. Paras Nath Singh, u/s 125, Cr.P.C. whereby the court below allowed the application and directed the applicant Paras Nath Singh to pay the maintenance of Rs. 200/- p.m. to O.P. No. 2 and maintenance of Rs. 100/- p.m. to each defendants No. 3, 4 & 5 from the date of the application i.e. 29.8.85, u/s 125, Cr.P.C.

It appears from the record that an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by O.P. No. 2, Smt. Anari Devi for her maintenance and for the maintenance of opposite parties No. 3, 4 & 5 who are said to be her daughters. Opposite party No. 2, Smt. Anari Devi claimed to be the mother of the applicant Paras Nath Singh and demanded maintenance from him. That application was allowed by the trial court and order was passed in the manner stated hereinbefore.

Heard Mr. Arvind Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for O.P. No. 1 and perused the record. None appeared for O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 inspite of the sufficient service.

Mr. Singh assailed the Judgment of the trial court on the following points.

That O.P. No. 2, Smt. Anari Devi is not the mother of the applicant, Paras Nath Singh and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from him;

That O.P. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 are claiming to be the sisters of the applicant for whom the applicant is not liable to pay any maintenance as per provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C.;

That the maintenance has wrongly been granted from the date of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C.

So far as the first ground is concerned, in that regard a look at the Judgment would reveal that the statement of O.P. No. 2 was relied upon against which there was no evidence before the trial court from the side of the applicant. Here, also the applicant has not produced any evidence by which this opinion of the trial court could be reversed that O.P. No. 2 is the mother of the applicant. Therefore, I am unable to accept this argument of Mr. Singh that O.P. No. 2, Anari Devi is not the mother of the applicant, Paras Nath Singh and is not entitled to get maintenance from him. In this regard the finding recorded by the trial court is approved.

So far as the second argument is concerned, that argument is liable to be accepted. Section 125, Cr.P.C. casts a duty and an obligation upon a person to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, his legitimate or illegitimate child who is physically handicapped and his father and mother. In this Section no obligation has been thrown upon the person to maintain his sisters, therefore, the applicant being the brother of O.P. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 was not under any obligation to maintain them u/s 125, Cr.P.C. and the trial court in this regard was not right in awarding the maintenance to them against the applicant. In this regard the argument of Mr. Singh is, hereby, accepted.

So far as the third argument is concerned that the maintenance was allowed from the date of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C., in that regard I would like to refer the provisions of Section 125(2), Cr.P.C. It says that normally the maintenance shall be allowed from the date of the order but the court in the peculiar circumstances of the case may allow the maintenance from the date of the application.

It is true that in the present case the trial court had not given any reason as to why the maintenance was allowed from the date of the application, but seeing that these were the quasi judicial proceedings it was not always necessary to mention reason for granting maintenance from the date of the application. I do feel that in exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. the order should not be set at naught as it will not be necessary to do in any of the events mentioned u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Thus, the argument in this regard advanced by Mr. Singh is also not acceptable to me.

In view of the above, the application is partly allowed. The Judgment of the trial court dated 18.6.93 is, hereby, modified to the extent that O.P. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 shall not be entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant awarded by the court below. Rest of the Judgment is maintained.