Rajendra Hari vs Smt. Rekha Devi and Another

Ramesh Kr. Datta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 although notices were validly served upon them. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur in Misc. Case No. 128 of 1995 u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which he has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance to opposite party No. 1 and has further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- within three months from the date of the order as one-time maintenance for the marriage expense of the daughter, who has become marriageable and until the said amount is paid, a sum of Rs. 500/- per month will be paid for the maintenance of his daughter.

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed only that part of the order which directs the payment of Rs. 25,000/- as one-time maintenance in favour of his daughter. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is no provision u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for payment of such lump sum amount as one-time settlement. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the supplementary affidavit that during the pendency of the revision application the daughter of the petitioner, opposite party No. 2, namely, Janak Kumari was married to one Sanjay Hari on 9.3.2006 and thus she would not be entitled to any maintenance after the said marriage.

From a bare perusal of Section 125 Cr. P.C., it is evident that the power has been vested in the Magistrate to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the wife or child (not being a married daughter) etc. and the amount is to be awarded at such monthly rate as the Magistrate thinks fit. Nowhere, the power has been conferred upon the Magistrate to grant a lump sum amount and clear stipulation is that the monthly allowance must be fixed at a monthly rate as thought fit by the Magistrate.

In the aforesaid circumstances the direction to pay Rs. 25,000/- as one-time maintenance to the petitioner''s daughter for the purpose of her marriage is clearly contrary to the law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to award the said amount. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28.2.2005 is partly set aside to the extent by which a direction to payment of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of one-time maintenance has been given. However, the petitioner would be obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 700/-as monthly maintenance award to opposite party No. 1, wife and also a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance award to her daughter from the date of the impugned order dated 28.2.2005 till 9.3.2006.