Select a page

Mohd. Akhtar Siddiqui @ Babar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.

Judgement

 

Court: Allahabad High Court

Bench: JUSTICE R.D. Khare

Mohd. Akhtar Siddiqui @ Babar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors. On 10 September 2009

Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Interim Maintenance — Amendment application amending amount claimed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. — Not permissible in law — Impugned order passed on amendment application unsustainable in eyes of law and set aside.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and the learned AGA for the State respondent.

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2009 passed on amendment application No. 108 filed by opposite party No. 2 in pending maintenance case No. 13 of 2005 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby said amendment application has been allowed and opposite party No. 2 has been permitted to amend the amount of interim maintenance claimed at the rate of Rs. 5000/- in place of Rs. 1000/- per month. The amendment was directed to be carried out within three days and the revisionst was permitted to file his objection to the said amendment within ten days.

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the private opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 had filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month on 15.5.2000. The revisionist filed his written statement to the said application. vide order dated 15.10.2005, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar granted interim maintenance of Rs. 400/- each to the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. It is further contended that on 18.6.2009, to prolong the said proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., an application for amendment was filed by the opposite party No. 2 for amending the amount of interim maintenance claimed from Rs. 1000/- as mentioned in the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to Rs. 5,000/- per month, which has been allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar by the impugned order.

4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment to be allowed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., therefore, order impunged is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

5. Sri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that the Judge, Family Court/Magistrate concerned has ample power under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. to grant monthly maintenance allowance to the wife, children, father or mother on such montly rate as the Magistrate/Court deems fit, therefore, nomenclature of the application filed would not matter as the application for amendment of the amount of interim maintenance claimed was filed on account of changed circumstances of increase in price structure and on the basis to which it was urged that interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- was highly inadquate to meet needs of opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 specially their educational expenses. It is further argued that nomenclature of the application would not be of much relevance and the Magistrate has only directed that the amount so claimed, i.e., Rs. 1000/- may be amended to Rs. 5,000/- per month but no direction for its payment has yet been issued, therefore, it is contended .that filing of present revision by the revisionist is misconceived. It is next argued that the provisions of Sections 125, 126, 127, 128, Cr.P.C. are beneficiary in nature in order to ensure that wives, children and parent, who are unable to maintain themselves, may be maintained properly and they are riot neglected by such person against whom maintenance is being claimed and who are otherwise legally liable to maintain them. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are beneficial legislation intended to secure the interest of the persons mentioned therein so as to prevent the vagaries of destitution and to ensure that they live a descent and honourable life.

Attention of the Court has also been drawn to Section 127, Cr.P.C., which pertains to alteration of allowance and it has been argued that the Magistrate has power to alter the amount of maintenance in the changed circumstances, which was granted initially under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and can direct for payment of such maintenance or interim maintenance, which Magistrate may make by such alteration. It is next contended that the application of amendment is not very happily worded and intent of moving such application was to enhance the claimed compensation due to changed circumstances of increase of cost of living during the past years.

6. Learned Counsel for the parties do not dispute that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amending the amount claimed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and the application, which has been moved by the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 was for amendment to be incorporated in the amount of maintenance claimed under Section 125, Cr.P.C., which application has been allowed and amendment has been permitted to be incorporated.

7. In view of the above admitted position, since the law does not permit for any amendment application to be allowed for amending the amount claimed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the order impunged dated 10.7.2009 passed on the amendment application allowing it, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside.

8. The present criminal revision is finally disposed of with the direction that if opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 shall file appropriate application, as per law an procedure contained in Cr.P.C., for enhancement of the amount claimed or awarded within a period of one month from today, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar shall consider and decide the same, expeditiously, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties preferably within a period of one month thereafter.

 

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us

If you have any query related to gender biased laws join Sahodar Whatsapp Groups by sending Whatsapp message “Subscribe” to Sahodar Trust No. 9811850498

0 Comments

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.