It Is Admitted Between The Parties That Indresh Was The Wife Ofthe Petitioner And He Is Serving In Income Tax Department Asinspector. It Is Also Admitted That M v. Anil Mittal & Others,Reported In 2010 (4) Lrc 34 (Del) And Submitted That Oppositeparty

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9005 of 2008 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Nitin GuptaCounsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Vishwa Nath Pandey Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J. 1-This writ petition has been preferred by Ravindra Kumar,husband of opposite party no.2-Indresh challenging the orderdated 03.09.2007 and order dated 07.04.2008 passed by theJudicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ghaziabad and AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Ghaziabad wherebythe application of opposite party no. 2-Indresh under Section125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the petitioner was directed to payRs.3,000/- per month as maintenance from the date ofapplication dated 11.1.2007. Aggrieved by the order dated03.09.2007, the petitioner filed criminal revision no. 518 of2007, which was dismissed by the Additional District andSessions Judge, Court No.11, Ghaziabad vide order dated07.04.2008. Hence this writ petition. 2-Heard Sri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, SriVishwa Nath Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3-It is admitted between the parties that Indresh was the wife ofthe petitioner and he is serving in Income Tax Department asInspector. It is also admitted that marriage was solemnized on20.4.2003 between Indresh and Ravindra Kumar. 4-From perusal of the record, it transpires that main allegationis made by the petitioner against his wife that she went to herparents house and she is earning Rs.2,000/- per month fromsewing and knitting and that plea was not found correct by boththe courts and impugned order was passed and upheld. 5-Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that wife of thepetitioner has filed Suit No.4660 of 2009 under Section 12 ofthe Domestic Violence Act and vide order dated 17.5.2010 thepetitioner was directed to pay total Rs.8,000/- per month to hiswife. 6-On this issue, learned counsel for the petitioner placedreliance in the case of Renu Mittal Vs. Anil Mittal & others,reported in 2010 (4) LRC 34 (Del) and submitted that oppositeparty no.2-Indresh is not entitled to get maintenance from two forums simultaneously. In this case the Court has held that "lawdoes not warrant that two parallel courts should adjudicate sameissue separately. If adjudication has already been done by acourt of MM under s. 125 of Cr.P.C., re-adjudication of issue ofmaintenance cannot be done by a Court of MM under DomesticViolence Act." 7- Question is whether opposite party no. 2 has succeeded toprove her case. Prove is defined under Section 3 of EvidenceAct which is quoted here as under:- "Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the mattersbefore it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence soprobable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of theparticular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." 8- Question is whether a prudent man can believe that factsshown in the application of opposite party no. 2 do exist. 9- Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summaryproceeding. Order does not determine rights of parties as it washeld by the Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs.Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3348, whereinfollowing has been observed:- "Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the mattersbefore it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence soprobable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of theparticular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." 8- Question is whether a prudent man can believe that factsshown in the application of opposite party no. 2 do exist. 9- Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summaryproceeding. Order does not determine rights of parties as it washeld by the Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs.Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3348, whereinfollowing has been observed:- "It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application underSection 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations ofthe parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summaryremedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For thepurpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed aCivil Suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, thisCourt in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam,{1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C.,1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there wassome evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could bereached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summaryorder which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of theparties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriagebetween the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceedingbetween the parties." 10. In the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. VeenaKaushal and others, (AIR 1978 SC 1807) Krishna Iyer, Jdealing with interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed (atPara 9) thus:- "This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted toprotect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep ofArticle 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections ofstatutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrantwords with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of theconstitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and childrenmust inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of twoalternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts." 11- Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice on thispoint. It is also pertinent to mention here that intention oflegislature also shows that this provision is measure of socialjustice because initially amount of maintenance was fixed toRs.500/- per month. Subsequently, it was enhanced uptoRs.5000/- per month and later on these words have been deletedand present position is that there is no financial limit formaintenance under this section. 12- In my opinion even if there is a valid decree of divorce, stillthe wife is entitled to maintenance till she gets remarried andbecomes the wife of another person, if she qualifies all otheraspects of Section 125 Cr.P.C. because explanation (b) ofSection 125 Cr.P.C. specifically says that wife includes awoman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorcefrom her husband and has not remarried. 13- Therefore, all grounds are without substance. No otherground has been pressed before this Court. The Courts belowhave carefully noticed all facts and has rightly decided the casein favour of opposite party no.2. This Court finds no illegality,impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in theimpugned order. 14-In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Stayorder, if any, stands vacated. 15-Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to raise allissues relating to double maintenance before the courtconcerned for maintenance and move an application there toadjust the amount awarded in this petition. 13- Therefore, all grounds are without substance. No otherground has been pressed before this Court. The Courts belowhave carefully noticed all facts and has rightly decided the casein favour of opposite party no.2. This Court finds no illegality,impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in theimpugned order. 14-In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Stayorder, if any, stands vacated. 15-Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to raise allissues relating to double maintenance before the courtconcerned for maintenance and move an application there toadjust the amount awarded in this petition. 16-The trial court is expected to pass an order in accordancewith law and the observation made in the body of the judgment. 17-Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned toproceed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.10.2018OP