Rudra v. Rahul Narwat
! "#$%&'$()*)%+ ,
,
-'."
,,,$#)#)%+$.
/*, "0-1".2"# ,,,$*3%+'$+# !
4 5!,6 6
6 7 , 5 !
!" # $%& ' '
(") *' +,-. /
/ . &
0 #
# /
/ .
"
.
( &2&" / .4 /' 4 /. 5 222267 # #
#.
& )8,'
$
8 / # .9
# #
2!
&2( :
;< # #
. #
./ /= # # & )8,' -. 4 /' .( &2&". 5 222267 1 / .
inter alia,
/
# #
. /#.. 5 222267 . #..
/ 0 - #
8
/ # -. 7 5 222267 =
!
>. .
#
-
/
(
# 3 . 8 >+
'
# / &
' /
> !#
-. ?
5 -
#.# "10. Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the order made under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a civil court."
%
'78
!
" #
. & ' . .
. ## / .
=
.. # ## / '7 8
$ % &
' # # #
# . / . # # -. 5
#.
# 7 "8. I have perused the compromise (Ex.C1) today produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It nowhere reflects that respondent No. 3 has accepted the maintenance amount in full and final settlement on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 also. The receipt attached with Exhibit CI reflects that a lump-sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- was accepted by respondent No. 3 as her past as well as future maintenance at the time of disposal of Hindu Marriage petition. It is a case where respondents No. 1 and 2 were not party in the Hindu Marriage petition. No interim maintenance was allowed to them in that petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that a petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed wherein any interim maintenance was fixed for the children. In the absence thereof also, statement of wife Manjit Kaur is of no value that she will maintain and educate the minor children.
9. The question of grant of maintenance of the children is governed by the statutes under the The Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The plea of the petitioner is falsified from the receipt which forms part of compromise, Ex.CI, which shows that no maintenance was ever accepted by their mother Manjit Kaur on their behalf. The question of making any statement by wife Manjit Kaur against the interest of the children is also not to be taken into account, unless a certificate is issued by a counsel representing the minors that the compromise is for the welfare of the minors. Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides safeguard to the future interests of the minors.
10. In the absence of abovesaid statutory requirements as well as that respondents No. 1 and 2 are not the party in the Hindu Marriage petition, the statement made by Manjit Kaur (respondent No. 3) has rightly been not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while fixing the interim maintenance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code The present
proceedings cannot be quashed for the simple reason that the wife has made a statement in a Hindu Marriage Act case that she would provide education and maintenance to the children. The petitioner is father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and cannot take the benefit from the statement of respondent No. 3 Manjit Kaur and wriggle out of his responsibility to maintain his legitimate children. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 after taking divorce are living separately with their respective spouses and children are living at the mercy of their grand-maternal parents."
#
/
< 8-
.
9 /5 %2222675 22 4 /'
. /. ##
2
0#
. / / . / 4 /' . /
. ),/
9 6 :
&
2$ &2&$ vishnu :
-.6 @6< :
@6<