Johnson M. Joseph Vs. Smt. Anita Johnson and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - it is well known that food. the observation of the supreme court holds good even after the insertion of the words 'unable to maintain herself in section 125 of the new code......of the new code. in rajattii v. ganesan, air 1999 sc 2374, it has been held by the supreme court that the words 'unable to maintain herself would mean the means available to the deserted wile while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after the desertion to survive somehow. section 125 is enacted on the premise that it is an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. in the present case the amount of rs. 1000/- per month determined by the additional sessions judge in revision cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable keeping in view that the applicant is ticket-collector in railways and his salary at present must be more than rs. 7,500/- per month. there is no scope for any interference in the impugned order in exercise of the power under section 482 of the code which is exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of court or to secure ends of justice.5. the petition is dismissed.6. misc. criminal case dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

S.P. Khare, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) challenging the grant of maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 Smt. Anita Johnson, wife of the applicant, under Section 125 of the Code.

2. It has been held by the Courts below that the respondent No. 1 is earning an amount of Rs. 1800/- per month as she is working as a Receptionist in Bhopal Sugar Industry Limited. The applicant is a Ticket-Collector in the Railways. Judicial Magistrate First Class had granted maintenance allowanceof Rs. 2000/- per month to the wife but it has been scaled down to Rs. 1000/-per month by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in revision.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that his wife does not come in the category of 'unable to maintain herself and therefore, she is not entitled to airy maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code from her husband. The question is whether the words 'unable to maintain herself used in Section 125(1)(a) of the Code should be construed so strictly as the learned counsel for the applicant wants, or there is scope for some liberal construction. The object of the provisions in Section 125 of the Code is to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose. Therefore, it should be liberally construed in favour of the applicant. Tlic word 'maintain' or 'maintenance' should be interpreted in such a way that the applicant gets an amount to meet the necessities of life. It is well known that food.clothing and shelter arc the basic nccessitic's of a person. A working woman is required to spend more than a house-wife as she has to work in the office and also to keep her household. She is entitled to lead a decent life commensurate with the status of her husband and the family. Her petition cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that she is earning something. Her income should be sufficient to meet her necessities. Her income can be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of maintenance to be allowed to her. The expression 'unable to maintain herself docs not mean that the wife should be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.

4. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious. That was case under Section 488 of the old Code. The observation of the Supreme Court holds good even after the insertion of the words 'unable to maintain herself in Section 125 of the new Code. In Rajattii v. Ganesan, AIR 1999 SC 2374, it has been held by the Supreme court that the words 'unable to maintain herself would mean the means available to the deserted wile while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after the desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 is enacted on the premise that it is an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, children and parents. In the present case the amount of Rs. 1000/- per month determined by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable keeping in view that the applicant is Ticket-Collector in Railways and his salary at present must be more than Rs. 7,500/- per month. There is no scope for any interference in the impugned order in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code which is exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to secure ends of justice.

5. The petition is dismissed.

6. Misc. Criminal Case dismissed.