Ramesh Chand Meena vs Kamlesh

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Mr. Ramesh Chand Meena, the petitioner, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Family Court, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent-daughter, Kamlesh, u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- from the date of filing of the application i.e. 2.6.2008. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Kamlesh, and her mother were maltreated by the petitioner. They were not only subjected to mental harassment but were also physically maltreated. Having no other option, the respondent and her mother left the parental/matrimonial home. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as she and her mother were unable to maintain themselves. The application was filed on behalf of the respondent by her mother as the respondent was minor at the relevant time. In the application it was claimed that the mother has to incur an expenditure of Rs. 7,500/- for educating and up-bringing the daughter. Hence, a prayer was made that the petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 7,500/- as maintenance for the respondent. It was further claimed that the petitioner has 75 bighas of land situated in Village Bhindi, Tehsil K. Patan and has two houses. His annual income is Rs. 8 Lacs. Despite the summons being issued to him, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court. The court proceeded ex-parte against him. By order dated 25.5.2012, the learned Court directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. S.N. Meena, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the petitioner is willing to keep the daughter with him. Since the daughter is unwilling to residing with him, he cannot be forced to maintain her.

Secondly, he does not own more than 3 bighas of land. Therefore, he is unable to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent-daughter.

Thirdly, that the learned Judge has committed an illegality while directing the payment of the maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 2.6.2008. Instead, the learned Judge ought to have directed that the maintenance be paid from the date of the order i.e. 25.5.2012.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

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

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate 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 of 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 h is wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate [***], as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:

[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for he interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.

In order to prevent women, be they wives or a minor child, from going wayward, Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enacted to provide maintenance to wives, children and parents. The said provision imposes a legal duty upon the father to maintain his daughter specially if she is minor, and even if she becomes a major, provided that the daughter remains unmarried. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not impose a condition that the child would be entitled to maintenance provided he/she lives with the father. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be forced to maintain the child if she refuses to live with him, is without any merit.

Once the summons were issued, the petitioner was duty-bound to appear before the court. If he has failed to appear and has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the plea of the respondent-daughter, he has himself to blame. In absence of any evidence produced by him, the learned Court is justified in accepting the evidence produced and the statement given by the respondent-daughter and her witnesses. Therefore, it is too late in the day for him to plead that he is owner of merely three bighas of and not owner of 75 bighas of land. Even if for the sake of argument his plea were accepted that he owns merely three bighas of land, even then a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- for a young girl who is to be educated and brought up, is not an unreasonable amount.

Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. grants a discretion any power to the learned Judge to decide whether the maintenance be paid from the date of the application, or from the date of the order. Considering the fact that the mother had to bear the expenses for bringing up the child from 2.6.2008-that is from the date of the submissions of the application-till the date of the order, if the petitioner, who happens to be the father, is directed to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the application, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge. After all, it is both the moral and legal duty of a father to maintain his daughter.

Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 25.5.2012. Thus, the criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit. It stands dismissed. Therefore, the stay application is also hereby dismissed.