Skip to content


Smt. Wafatan Vs. Jamil Ahmed - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Petition No. 112 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984WLN85
AppellantSmt. Wafatan
RespondentJamil Ahmed
Cases ReferredSribataha Barik v. Mst. Padma
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 125--maintenance--two minor children staying with mother--held, it is duty of father to pay for their maintenance.;it is not in dispute that one daughter aged 2 years and a son aged 6 months were jiving with the petitioner on the date of filing of this petition on november 20, 1978. both the above children are still minor and even if they are living with the petitioner still it was the duty of the non-petitioner who is the, father of these minor children to pay maintenance for the above two children. - - judicial magistrate no, 2-kota by his order, dated april 13, 1981 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that she had failed to prove that she had been deserted by the non-petitioner without lawful excuse. 2 kota, by his order,..........so far as the petitioner herself is concerned. it was however, argued that so far as the two minor children are concerned who are admittedly living with the petitioner, both the lowers courts have not given any reasons as to why the maintenance was not allowed with regard to two children. it was contended that even if it was found by the courts below that the petitioner herself had left the non-petitioner and had come to live with her parents, this does not deprive the claim of maintenance so far as the minor children are concerned. in support of the above contention learned counsel placed reliance on (1) chamala padamamma and anr. v. chamaj narsi reddy 1972 cr. l.j. 1947 (2) mohammed yusuf khan v. mst. zarina 1975 rlw 222 and (3) sribataha barik v. mst. padma : air1969ori112 . in.....
Judgment:

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482. Cr. PC filed by Stat. Wafatan, wife of non-petitioner, Jamil Ahmed, in proceedings for maintenance under Sec 125, Cr. PC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the lawfully married wife of the non-petitioner and at the time when the petition was filed on November 20, 1978 she had a daughter aged 2 years and a son aged 6 months. The petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and her children on the ground that she was deserted by the non petitioner without any lawful excuse and had neglected to pay any maintenance. The petition, was contested by the non-petitioner on various grounds and the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate No, 2-Kota by his order, dated April 13, 1981 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that she had failed to prove that she had been deserted by the non-petitioner without lawful excuse. A revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota, by his order, dated February 9, 1983. In these circumstances the present petition bad been filed by the wife Smt. Wafatan challenging the orders of the courts below.

2. A notice was given to the non-petitioner but nobody has appeared on his behalf inspite of notice.

3. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the claim for maintenance so far as the petitioner herself is concerned. It was however, argued that so far as the two minor children are concerned Who are admittedly living with the petitioner, both the lowers Courts have not given any reasons as to why the maintenance was not allowed with regard to two children. It was contended that even if it was found by the Courts below that the petitioner herself had left the non-petitioner and had come to live with her parents, this does not deprive the claim of maintenance so far as the minor children are concerned. In support of the above contention learned Counsel placed reliance on (1) Chamala Padamamma and Anr. v. Chamaj Narsi Reddy 1972 Cr. L.J. 1947 (2) Mohammed Yusuf Khan v. Mst. Zarina 1975 RLW 222 and (3) Sribataha Barik v. Mst. Padma : AIR1969Ori112 . In this case it is not in dispute that one daughter aged 2 years & a son aged 6 months were living with the petitioner on the date of filing of this petition on Nov. 20, 1978 Both the above children are still minor & even if they are living with the petitioner still it was the duty of the non-petitioner who is the father of these minor children to pay maintenance for above two children. It is nowhere the case of the non-petitioner that he ever paid any amount for maintaining the above children during all this period. It is also not in dispute that the non-petitioner is employed in Municipal Council, Kota and was drawing a salary of Rs. 500/- P.M. at the time of filing of the petition before the trial Court. Thus each or(sic) of the two children are entitled to maintenance of Rs. 50/- p.m. The petitioner who is the mother of the two children and who is maintaining the two children at present will be entitled to get this amount. The petition is accordingly allowed. The non petitioner Jamil Ahmed shall pay by way of maintenance Rs 50/- p.m. to each one of the two minor children from the date of the filing of the application, i.e. November 20, 1978 and the petitioner shall be entitled to receive that amount till the above two children become major. The non-petitioner is granted three months' time to pay the arrears of maintenance and he shall also pay the maintenance now falling due for every month by the 15th of next succeeding month.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //