ORDER
A.K. Gohil, J.
1. The petitioner-husband has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short 'the Code') for quashing the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 1999 on 24-3-2000 confirming the order dated16-8-1999 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khachrod in Misc. Criminal Case No. 55 of 1998.
2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the non-applicant/wife Smt. Jagrati w/o Ramfool Mina filed an application under Section 125 of the Code on 4-9-1991 before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khachrod which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 16 of 1991 (New No. 55 of 1998). In this application she prayed a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance amount on the ground that her husband Ramfool Mina has contracted second marriage. The Trial Court after recording the evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards maintenance from 1-1-1999 by order dated 16-8-1999. Against this order of award of amount of maintenance dated 16-8-1999, the husband/petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod and the Revisional Court maintained the order of Trial Court and dismissed the revision. Against these two orders the applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code invoking the extra-ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the aforesaid two orders on the ground that the amended provisions of Section 125 of the Code are not applicable on the pending proceedings and both the Courts below have wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month whereas they cannot award more than 500 rupees. Therefore, both the orders are without jurisdiction and be quashed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and also the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant/wife has applied for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month but the Court has granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,OOOA on the ground that after the amendment in Section 125 of the Code the amount of monthly maintenance is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/- but the aforesaid amendment is not applicable to the pending proceedings. The learned counsel relied on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Gwalior v. Nafis Begam and others, reported in 1991 MPLJ 700, in a case of no fault liability, on the analogy that the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are analogous to the provisions of Section 125 and in the aforesaid decision the Full Bench of this Court has already held that under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the benefit cannot be availed of by the parties where accident took place before 1-10-1982 on which date Section 92-A came into force and this legislation is a piece of substantive law creating new law and liabilities. Therefore, retrospective operation cannot be given to this provision treating it as a procedural law. The submission of the learned counsel for applicant is that on the same analogy the amendment in Section 125 of the Code for enhancement of amount of compensation from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- is an amendment related to substantive law which creates new law and liabilities. Therefore, itcannot be operated retrospectively and this also cannot be treated as a procedural law.
5. In reply the submission of learned counsel for non-applicant/wife is that the principle of no fault liability is not applicable in this case. On the day when order is passed by the Trial Court the power to grant a sum of Rs. 1,000/-lowards maintenance was available. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code are not part of the substantive law creating any new right and liabilities but under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is regarding the orders for maintenance to wife, children and parents and it is a law relating to creation of obligation on the part of the husband to maintain wife, children and parents.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision has no merit and the amendment though prospective but applicable on pending proceedings. The two Courts below have already awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards the maintenance to non-applicant/wife. The object of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling a person to support his wife or child or father or mother unable to support itself. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of this Chapter arc not in the nature of penal provisions but are only intended for the fulfilment of a duty to avoid vagrancy and this section does not finally determine the rights of the parlies and the proceedings under governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure may be treated as quasi-criminal and quasi-civil proceedings. Neglect to maintain a wife or a child has not been made as an offence under these proceedings. Therefore, the strict procedure which is applicable to the criminal cases is also not applicable to these proceedings. The provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Code constitute a complete Code in itself, it deals with adjudication as regards the liability to pay monthly allowance to the neglected wife and child including execution of order and the mode of execution. There is nothing in this section which by itself creates or brings into existence the right to maintenance as such. It only proceeds on the assumption of the existence of such right once the relationship of husband and wife and others is established. The person approaching the Court under these sections is under an obligation to prove. It enables Magistrate to lake a summary action for prevention of destitution of females and not to determine the legal rights of the parties.
7. In the case of Bhagwan Dittt v. Smt. Kamla Devi and another, reported in AIR 1975 SC 83, the Apex Court interpreted the unamended Sections 488, 489 and 490 of Code and has held as under :--
'These provisions are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief, they seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destituted on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy,immorality and crime for their subsistence. Thus, Section 488 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of the parties. The jurisdiction conferred by the section on the Magistrate is more in the nature of a preventive, rather than a remedial jurisdiction; it is certainly not punitive.'
8. In the case of Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, reported in 1986 Cr.LJ. 41 = AIR 1986 SC 984, it has been further held by the the Apex Court as under :--
'Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under Section 125, the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to pending final disposal of the application.'
9. In the case of Captain Ratnesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807, a similar question arose, whether the Magistrate can order a monthly maintenance for wife, child, mother and father together and the ceiling of monthly allowances not exceeding Rs. 500/- in the whole mean that the total award cannot exceed Rs. 500/-. Answering the question, the Apex Court has held as under :--
'The provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Art. 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by Courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause - the cause of the derelicts.'
10. The question involved in this case has to be examined and answered in the background of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, and also in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons formulated by the State of Madhya Pradesh for amending the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and enhancing the amount of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1997 No. 10 of 1998. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are as under :--
'Statement of Objects and Reasons : According to the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the maintenance allowance of wives, children or parent is payable at such monthly rate not exceeding 500/- rupees. Since the existing amount of maintenance allowance has become insufficient in the presentday circumstances, it has been considered necessary to enhance the same upto 3000/- rupees.'
11. In view of the aforesaid statement of objects and reasons the object behind amendment and enhancement of the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- is very clear. Since the existing amount of maintenance allowance has become insufficient in the present day circumstances, it has been considered necessary to enhance the same up to Rs. 3,000/- and in view of the above it has been decided to amend Section 125 of Code in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh. No doubt this amendment came into force on 30th May, 1998 when the President granted the assent and the assent first published in the 'Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extra-ordinary)' dated the 30th May, 1998. Therefore, the amended provision is applicable w.c.f. 30th may, 1998.
12. Needless to say that the State Legislature has taken into consideration two facts for amending the law (1) the 'present day circumstances'; and (2) the existing amount of maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- has become insufficient. The first fact of 'present day circumstances' has important significance and this means that the State Government has taken into consideration the various factors of present day circumstances for enhancement of the amount of allowance like, price rise, and increasing cost of living, including devaluation of money etc. No doubt the provisions of Section 125 of the Code are for the benefit of the members of the weaker section of the society specially for destituted women and children and old parents. When the legislature has considered the present day circumstances in amending the law then it is the duty of the Courts to grant and provide benefit of this benevolent law to the destitutes of the present day. Thus, from the Statement of Objects and Reasons it clearly intends that it should be made applicable to the pending proceedings.
13. The Apex Court has already ruled in the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal (supra) that social justice is not constitutional claptrap but fighting faith which enlivens legislative texts with militant meaning. It has been further ruled that this provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.
14. In the case of Dayawati and another v. Inderjti and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1423, the Apex Court examined the applicability of the provision of Usurious Loans Act as amended by Section 5 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act No. 7 of 1934 which was extended to Delhi on 8lh June, 1956 and claimed that the interest in excess of seven and half per cent per annum could not be awarded in this suit which also includes an appeal from the decision of the suit and it has been held about the applicability of the new law as under :--
'Now as a general proposition, it may be admitted that ordinarily a Court of appeal cannot take into account a new law, brought into existence after the judgment appealed from has been rendered,because the rights of the litigants in an appeal are determined under the law in force at the date of the suit. Even before the days of Coke, whose maxim - a new law ought to be prospective, not retrospective in its operation is oft-quoted, Courts have looked with disfavour upon laws which take away vested rights or affect pending cases. Matters of procedure are, however, different and the law affecting procedure is always retrospective. But it docs not mean that there is an absolute rule of inviolability of substantive rights. If the new law speaks in language, which, expressly or by clear intendment, lakes in even pending matters, the Court of trial as well as the Court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed, and the Court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of the Court of first instance. The distinction between laws affecting procedure and those affecting vested rights does not matter when the Court is invited by law to lake away from a successful plaintiff.'
15. The aforesaid judgment is again followed in the case of Lakshmi Narayan Gum and others v. Niranjan Modak, reported in AIR 1985 SC 111, in which it has been held as under :--
'Where the decree for eviction is passed by the Trial Court against the tenant under the provisions of the T.P. Act and the statute giving protection to tenant against eviction is extended to the concerned area during pendency of appeal against the decree for eviction, the Appellate Court is bound to take into account the change of law and to extend its benefit to the tenant, and consequently to set aside the decree of the Trial Court and dismiss the suit. A change in the law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and will govern the rights of the parties.'
16. According to the decision in the case of Dayavati (supra) if the new law speaks a language which expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters the Court of trial as well as the Court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed and the Court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of first instance. The distinction between laws affecting procedure and those affecting vested rights docs not matter when the Court is invited by law to take away from a successful plaintiff, what he has obtained under a judgment. In this case both the Courts below after the amendment gave the effect and directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,000/- as a maintenance.
17. In view of the aforesaid decisions and in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons the aforesaid amendment should be applicable on the pending proceedings and in the cases where the orders arc passed after 30th May, 1998 the Magistrate has powers to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- upto Rs. 3,000/-. The language used in the Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly intends that this amendment is applicable on the pendingproceedings. The reason, since the existing amount of maintenance allowance has become insufficient in the present day circumstances, and the amendment further says that in view of the above it has been decided to amend Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, from the plain reading of Statement of Objects and Reasons it is clear that the intention of the legislature is to consider the present day circumstances in which the amount of maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- has become insufficient and to provide benefit to the destitutes and when the legislature wants to take into consideration the present day circumstances, it would clearly mean thai the amendment shall be applicable though prospectively with effect from 30th May, 1998 when it was first published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) but would amount to be applicable on the present day pending proceedings. The intention of the Madhya Pradesh Legislature is very clear to provide benefit to the members of the weaker section of the society like wife, children or the old parents who are not having any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. Having regard to this social object the amended provisions have to be given a liberal construction to fulfill and achieve this intention of the Legislature, because dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in helpiess state of distress, destitution and starvation. Therefore, looking to the intention spelled out by the Statement and Objects and Reasons, this Court is of the view that the amendment is applicable to the pending proceedings and the Magistrate have power to enhance the amount of maintenance in the cases in which the orders are passed after 30th May, 1998.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussions it is clear that looking to the language of the Statement of Objects and Reasons used in the Amendment Act, 1997 (No. 10 of 1998) the amendment is intended to be applicable to the pending proceedings. Accordingly the Trial Court and the first Revisional Court have rightly awarded the enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. Looking to the present day circumstances the existing amount of Rs. 500/- as maintenance allowance has become insufficient. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error in the orders and I also do nol see any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courls below.
19. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code under the garb of second revision. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing a second revision and, therefore, the provisions of Section 482 of the Code cannot be used for filing the same as the second revision is not maintainable under the garb of Section 482 of the Code.
20. For the reasons stated above, I do not see any ground for interference in the order passed by the Courls below and accordingly this revisionis dismissed as not maintainable.
21. Misc. Criminal Case dismissed.