Ghisu Lal Vs. Resham Bai - 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. - in such cases, law must effectively come to rescue and lend helping hand to combat destitution. that the applicant is well placed in life to meet the liability. the conclusion is well supported from the evidential matter and deserves to be sustained.a.r. tiwari, j.1. this petition filed under section 482 cr. p.c, seeks reversal of the orders passed by the court below regarding maintenance allowance under section 125 cr.p.c. the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of ra. 300/- p.m. to the non-applicant.2. the object behind the benevolent provision of section 125 cr. p.c. in to prevent the vagrancy of destitute women and provide speedy remedy a woman left in lurch by her man, if suddenly consigned to a position where the has then less in life. in such cases, law must effectively come to rescue and lend helping hand to combat destitution. in such a predicament those who have thus less in life should have more in law. in 1991(1) mpwn, 241, k. vimla v. verraswamy, the apex court held as under ;'section 125 of the code of criminal procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution it provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.'3. in the case on hand, two courts have concurrently held the applicant liable to pay amount of maintenance, quantified at ra. 300/- p.m. to the non-applicant. resting on the linchpin of petti forgery, the applicant undaunted by unsuccess in two courts below, seeks to have the impugned orders anaesthetized. the attack is on the subvention of the following points :(a) the non-applicant is not entitled to get the relief as she is possessed of sufficient means and is thus not unable to maintain herself. (b) the non-applicant has two sons supporting their mother.(c) the amount awarded as maintenance is excessive requiring reduction so as to soften the rigour of the adjudged liability.(d) the application was filed after a period of ten years.4. the two courts below on proper evaluation of evidence have concluded that the applicant having sufficient means neglected to maintain the non-applicant; that the non-applicant is the wife left to woes and is unable to maintain herself; that sporadic work fetching meagre wages, born of necessity could not out look or cumber the legal liability of the husband; that the amount granted, in an age of soaring prices and roaring problems, cannot be categorised as excessive; that the applicant is well placed in life to meet the liability. the second marriage is admitted. the claim is by the first wife. explanation to section 125 reads as under :'if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.'5. neither the submissions, nor the record yielded any case to treat the command as subvertible. the conclusion is well supported from the evidential matter and deserves to be sustained. section 482 cr. p.c, available in rarest of rare cases, is surely not usable as the weapon to kill the order which is evidently impeccable.6. in the circumstances, let there be lambrequin on the issue and cessation on the litigative proclivity.7. as regard the contention of alleged late arrival in the court, this is being stated only to be rejected. it is pertinent to refer to sub-section (2) of section 125 cr. p.c. it reads as under :'such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.'in 1992(i) mpwn, 21 (bafati khan v. mahila hasina bano) it is held that:'the courts below have erred in awarding maintenance from the date of her desertion. the non-applicant, under the law, can be granted maintenance from the date of application i.e. from 23-9-81.'8. it thus emerges that nonchalance or inaction for a considerable period enures to the benefit of the applicant himself because the liability is not capable of being retrojected to any period prior to the application in any case. and the cause of action is surely recurring in nature so long as the question of survival and sustainability of life exists as an evergreen factor. there is no period of limitation provided for (his purpose. there is thus no visible nodus in this behalf. the order is thus not found to be deciduous.9. in the result this petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. the applicant shall pay rs. 300/- as costs of this petition to the non-applicant. the record of the trial court, if any, shall be sent back immediately.