Romesh Chander vs Sudesh Kumari and anr.

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

This is petition filed by Romesh Chander against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dated 19th July, 1984, by which he remanded the case to the trial Magistrate for reconsideration of the amount of maintenance to be allowed to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are the minor children of the petitioner.

The facts which gave rise to this petition are as follows, Respondent No. 1 Smt. Sudesh Kumari wife of the petitioner filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A compromise was reached between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner for payment of Rs. 400 as maintenance to the respondents, i.e. Rs. 200 to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 100 each to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 went in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by placing reliance on N.E. Vasudevan Nair v. Kalyani Amma Gouri Amma and others, 1978 Cr. L.J. 1173, remanded the case to the Trial Magistrate for reconsideration of the claim of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He particularly quoted the observations of a Single Bench in N.E. Vasudevan Nair''s case (supra), which are as under:

"The proceedings under S. 488. Criminal P.C. are not in the nature of criminal Proceedings. They are really civil Proceedings, but dealt with summarily in a criminal Court for the purpose of speedy disposal on grounds of convenience and social order. The father of the minor children stands in a fiduciary position in relation to them as he their natural guardian. It, cannot, therefore, be seriously contended on behalf of the father that compromise with his divorced wife is ipso facto binding on the minor children. It is the duty of the Criminal Court to see as does a civil Court whether compromise is really beneficial and advantageous to the minors and more so when the claim is for their maintenance."

So when the claim is for their maintenance, I do not think that there is any illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanding the case to the trial Magistrate. In these circumstances, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the order. This petition consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.