INTRODUCTION
Section 125 of CrPC talks about a person who has sufficient means and yet denies or omits the act of maintaining his parents, wife not living in adultery, legitimate or illegitimate children, minor or major unmarried daughter or disabled children irrespective of their age who are incapable of maintaining themselves shall be ordered to pay allowance to the above mentioned people.
It is a legislation for social justice and has a very distinct approach under section 125 of CRPC while dealing with such cases which has clearly been stated in the case of Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godsey and others 2014 SEC 188 and Dwarika Prasad Satpathi Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit AIR 1999 SC 3348 In these two cases the court said that there should be a drift in approach while dealing with cases under section 125 of CRPC from adversarial litigation to social context adjudication.
In the case of Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 5 SCC 196 and Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985) 4 SCC 337 It was stated in the above two cases that the proceeding under section 125 of CRPC is not strictly criminal but civil in nature and the jurisdiction of the magistrate under chapter 9 of CRPC is not strictly that of a criminal jurisdiction. It was stated in the above two cases that the proceeding under section 125 of CRPC is not strictly criminal but civil in nature and the jurisdiction of the magistrate under chapter 9 of CRPC is not strictly that of a criminal jurisdiction.
Shantha Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa, (2005) 4 SCC 468 and Savitaben Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 case It was said in the judgment that section 125 of CRPC must be construed literally as it is a measure of social legislation for the welfare and the benefits of women and children.
Nagendrappa Natikar Vs. Neelamma, AIR 2013 SC 1541 and Dwarika Prasad Satpathi Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit, AIR 1999 SC 3348 The court said that section 125 of CRPC intends to provide a speedy remedy and hence it is summary in nature.
MAINTENANCE TO WIFE
When determining maintenance, the position of the husband and wife should be considered, and even if the wife works and has a source of income, she is entitled to maintenance based on the husband’s status. Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324
The application under section 125 of the CrPC, on the other hand, can be denied on the grounds that:
- The revisionist refuses to explain why she is living alone.
- If the property is sold and money is received, it shows that she has sufficient financial resources.
- Because the revisionist cannot say whether her children were literate or illiterate, or how much they were educated, the court may draw certain negative assumptions.
- If she takes care of all of the children, she will be able to support herself.
- The Husband alleges that the revisionist has an unlawful relationship with a person, which she does not deny.
Hence a court cannot reject a plea under section 125 on the ground that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself as she got money after selling a property Smt. Krishna Devi v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 205 of 2016] and the same has been replicated in the section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the new law which has replaced the CrPC effectively from 1st July, 2024 prospectively.
MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN
The father is legally obligated to maintain his child in accordance with his status and lifestyle, regardless of whether or not the child’s mother works and earns. A father’s obligation to keep a kid cannot be erased just because the youngster does not exhibit compassion for him. Even if the mother is employed, the father is responsible for the child. Km. Ankita Dikshit v. State Of U.P. And Anr. [CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 398 of 2016]
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a father’s responsibility to pay for his son’s education cannot be dismissed just because he has reached the age of adulthood. The high court stated that the husband must bear the financial burden of ensuring that his children are capable of achieving a position in society where they can sustain themselves, and that the mother cannot be forced to bear the entire cost of her son’s education simply because he has reached the age of majority. Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal Crl. Rev. P. 549/2018 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 14.06.2021. Dependence on parents indicates that the children are unable to support themselves, either because they are studying or because of illness.
Although an adult son cannot claim maintenance from his parents as a matter of right, we must remember that in Indian culture, parents have the obligation to keep their adult kid until he finds a suitable employment, and it is the parents’ social duty to provide for the adult child. The Court ruled that Indian culture and customs cannot be compared to those of Europeans. Mohan Singh Mawri v. Smt.Haripriya Mawri,2017
Even if the kid achieves majority, it is not the appropriate age for him to become economically self-sufficient and expected to work. As a result, even when he has reached the age of adulthood, a major son of well-educated and financially secure parents may recover college expenditures from his father or mother. As a result, it does not technically fall under the definition of maintenance as defined by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by Section 20(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Jayvardhan Singh Chapotkat vs. Ajayveer Chapotka, 2014
MAINTENANCE TO MUSLIM WOMEN
The Muslim Protection (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is contended to be a special law by many senior lawyers thus prevailing over the common law i.e. section 125 of CrPC. The 1986 law was enforced only to nullify the effect of the Mohd. Ahmad Khan V. Shah Bano Begum which entiti led a divorced muslim woman to claim maintenance under section 125 of CrPC.
Section 3 of the 1986 Act provides that a divorced muslim woman can only claim maintainace till the iddat period and can further approach the Judical magistrate to claim maintenance even after the iddat period until the date of her remarriage.
Further through Majeeb Rahiman Vs. Thasleena, 2022 judgment it was clarified that a muslim divorced woman can claim maintenance under sec 125 until the order for maintenance under section 3 of the 1968 act is passed.
It was further clarified in the cases of Moushad Flourish Vs Akhila Noushad, 2023 it was ruled that a muslim divorced wife who obtained a divorce through Khula cannot maintenance under section 125 CrPC.
SECTION 125 OF CrPC WITH SECTION 362 OF CrPC
The jurisdiction of a Magistrate to modify orders for maintenance issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is unaffected by Section 362, which prohibits criminal courts from amending their orders.
Except to repair a typographical or arithmetical error, no court can amend or review a judgment or final decision once it has been signed, according to Section 362 of the Code. The question was whether this restriction also applied to orders issued in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC. Sanjeev Kapoor Vs Chandana Kapoor and Ors Supreme Court Criminal Appeal Nos. 286 of 2020
The provision for maintenance falls under the category of social justice law, according to Section 125 of the Code. A deeper examination of Section 125 Cr.P.C. reveals that the Court does not become functus officio after pronouncing judgment or final decision in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 125(1), Section 125(5), and Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. all provide clear provisions for the cancellation or modification of orders made under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The word “from time to time” appears in Section 125, and it has a special meaning that indicates that a Magistrate may exercise authority under this Section at any moment. As a result, an order issued under this Section lacks finality and is not functus officio.
the wording and phrasing of Section 362, which include the words “except as otherwise specified by this Code,” which gives leeway for exceptional instances. Furthermore, the Magistrate has the authority under Section 127(2) of the Code to rescind or change any order made under Section 125.
As a result, the Court decided that Sections 125(5) and 127 amounted to the exceptions set forth in Section 362 and that, as a result, a Magistrate’s order in a maintenance matter under Section 125 is not prevented from being changed or revoked.
PLACE OF SUING
The term “residence” as used in Section 126 CrPC cannot be equated to a “casual stay or a flying visit.” The law specifies that procedures for support under Section 125 may be brought against any individual in any district: where he is, or where he or his wife resides, or where he last resided with his wife, or with the mother of the illegitimate child, as the case may be. Nirman Sagar Vs. Smt. Monika Sagar Chaudhari and another in Criminal Revision No. 3060/2021
Whatever interpretation is assigned to it, one thing is clear: it does not encompass a casual stay in or a quick visit to a certain location. In other words, the definition of the word would, in the end, be determined by the context and purpose of a certain legislation. The context and purpose of the current Act do not, in this situation, require the use of the term “domicile” in its technical sense. If the phrase “resides” was interpreted to cover temporary residency, the statute’s aim would be better met. The sub-juxtaposition sections of the terms “is” and “‘last resided” sheds insight on the meaning of the word “resides.” The term “is” imposes jurisdiction on a Court based on a casual visit, as we will explain later, and the statement “last resided,” which we will also discuss, suggests that the Legislature could not have intended to use the word “resides” in the technical meaning of domicile. The word “resides” cannot be given a meaning other than the word “resided” in the sentence “‘last resided,” thus the larger meaning fits in the context. In this case, a couple of the cases listed at the Bar may be relevant. Jagir Kaur & Another vs Jaswant Singh on 13 February, 1963
CONCLUSION
Under this clause, a child’s upkeep is determined by paternity. This is true regardless of the kid’s legality or illegitimacy; hence, a child whose parents are not legally married is nevertheless entitled to maintenance under the law. The kid has no entitlement if paternity cannot be confirmed. Smt. Ahalya Bariha v. Chhellia Pedhan, 1992 CrLJ 493
The child might be adopted or born naturally. After reaching majority, a kid, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as they are not a married daughter, can claim maintenance under Section 125 (1)(c), if the child is unable to support themselves due to a physical or mental abnormality or damage. Abhilasha vs. Prakash [Crl. Appeal No. 615 of 2020
A mother or father who is unable to sustain herself is entitled to maintenance from their children under Section 125 (1) (d) of the law. Although the term ‘his’ is used, it refers to both the parents’ male and female offspring. In Indian society, children have a social obligation to support their parents, and this social obligation extends to daughters as well. Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao AIR 1989 SC 1100 The word ‘parent’ is not used in subsection (4); this has been interpreted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in N. B. Bhikshu v. State of Andhra Pradesh to mean that only a legitimate child has the obligation to maintain their parent, and the parent may claim against any child if there are multiple children. N. B. Bhikshu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 CrLJ 3280
The most basic prerequisite is that an order of maintenance against a person may only be issued if he or she has “sufficient means to sustain” the person who is the subject of the claim and neglects or refuses to do so. According to the Delhi High Court, this implies that a man is considered to be in possession of the resources to maintain his family as long as he is healthy and able-bodied, and he cannot be freed of this responsibility just because he is unemployed, in debt, or bankrupt. [18] The guy stating he doesn’t have enough money to live on bears the burden of evidence. Because he is unemployed, the duty does not go away. If a monk is unable to pay such a maintenance payment because he is a monk, he must remove his yellow robe and work. The social justice aspect and the protection of the weaker segment of society, which includes women, children, and the old, are credited with this view. Hardev Singh v. State 1995 CrLJ 1652
According to the first provision of Section 125, warrants are only issued if an application for them is presented to the court within one year of when the sum becomes due (3). The Supreme Court has made it plain that the imprisonment allowed for in this clause is not an alternative to the obligation to pay maintenance, but rather a method of enforcement to ensure that the obligation is fulfilled as soon as possible. When the payments are made, the responsibility is discharged. Kuldip Singh v. Suriender Singh AIR 1989 SC 232.
Shatakshi Mathur who’s an advocate in the Supreme Court of India & Riya Raj who’s an advocate with background in journalism.