No Bar To Awarding Maintenance More Than The Amount Claimed In Section 125 CrPC Application: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that there is no bar for a court to award maintenance more than the amount claimed in Section 125 CrPC application.
The Indore Bench of the High Court observed thus while it dismissed the Criminal Revision Application of a Father challenging the maintenance order passed by the Trial Court.
The Court also observed that the Appellate Court cannot interfere with a maintenance order passed by the Trial Court merely because the minor son had attained majority during the pendency of the Application.
The Bench of Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta observed, “However, it appears that in changed circumstances, the applicants have been rightly awarded maintenance amount, more than claimed amount"
Advocate Arihant Kumar Nahar appeared for the Applicants (Wife and minor Son) and Advocate VK Jain appeared for the Respondent (Husband/Non-Applicant).
A wife filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) claiming that her husband had demanded dowry and subjected her to physical abuse. She also claimed that she had no source of income, while he was a railway employee earning Rs. 8,000 per month. The husband denied the allegations and claimed that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. He also stated that she was earning Rs. 10,000 per month from private tutoring and running a beauty parlor. The Trial Court noted the wife's income to be Rs. 3,000 per month and the husband's net income to be more than Rs. 21,000 per month. The Trial Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to the wife and Rs. 4,000 to their minor son. Aggrieved, the Husband approached the High Court challenging the order of the Trial Court.
The Court observed that the minor son was entitled to maintenance from the father under Section 125 of the CrPC at the time of filing of the application. However, he attained the age of majority during the pendency of the revision petition. Therefore, the Husband can approach the Trial Court under relevant provisions for maintenance.
The Court noted that the earlier filed application under Section 125 of CrPC was withdrawn by the applicants and not decided on merits. Therefore, the principle of Res Judicata is not applicable.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that the statement of Wife is reliable and it appears that the applicants had sufficient cause to live separate from the Husband. The wife has no means to maintain herself and her child. The Court added that the Husband worked in the railway department and had a sufficient source of income. Therefore, the Bench observed that Husband had the legal and moral obligation to maintain the applicants.
“Apart from that if it is presumed that one sister and mother is dependant on non-applicant, then too the present applicants are wife and son of the present applicant. It also appears that the non-applicant works in railway department and has sufficient source of income and thus he has legal and moral obligation to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the non-applicant has sufficient source of income and hence is liable to maintain the applicants”, the Bench noted.
Regarding the issue of granting maintenance exceeding the claimed amount, the Court observed that the Husband's income had increased significantly since the maintenance application was filed. Therefore, the Court noted that the decision of the Trial Court to grant more than the claimed amount was justified.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: Smt. Deepa v Harish Railwani
