AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.S. Azad, J.
On a perusal of certified copy of order dated 23rd October, 2001, passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Criminal Revision No. 43/2001, (marked as Annexure P-4), filed by this petitioner challenging order dated 30th January, 2001, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sausar, in M.Cr.C. No. 31/2000, (the photostat copy of certified copy of the order is marked as Annexure P-3), so also Annexure P-3, reveals that on llth July, 2000, the non-applicant filed an application against this petitioner u/s 125 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner resisted the maintainability of the aforesaid application on the grounds that the non-applicant is possessed of sufficient means for her maintenance and the inordinate delay in filing this petition is not explained.
The petitioner being unsuccessful in both the Courts below, has now approached this Court seeking interference under inherent powers.
Referring to the case Kuntibai Vs. Alakhram, , it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the absence of justified explanation about the inordinate delay in filing the maintenance petition alone, the non-applicant''s application was liable to be rejected, who is possessed of sufficient means for her maintenance.
In Kuntibai (Smt.) v. Alakhram (supra), this Court justified the orders of rejection of maintenance application on the grounds of non-explanation of inordinate delay of 12 years and the wife been found having means to satisfy her need.
But in this case, it is found staled in Paragraph 1 of the maintenance petition that on being turned out by the petitioner, the non-applicant had been living at the residence of her father, without being possessed of any source for livelihood and under the similar circumstances, now she is residing at the residence of her maternal uncle, after the death of her father.
Then, in Paragraph 3 of the maintenance petition, it is specifically stated on behalf of the non-applicant that she has no source of income and hence, is totally incapable of maintaining herself. Thus, the non-applicant is found to have claimed maintenance on the ground of non-availability of source of income and has explained the inordinate delay in filing this petition, in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of her application respectively.
Since the correctness of aforesaid averments in maintenance application of the non-applicant, is to be tested after recording the evidence of both the parties, this petition is found to be premature, which stands rejected accordingly at the stage of motion itself.