9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1521 - SC - Indian LawsDivorce my mutual consent - Arrears in payment of maintenance money (for the son) - Interpretation of statute - whether the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court dated 05.01.2019 setting aside the order dated 06.05.2017 disposing of the application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure and restoring the application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was contrary to Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure? - HELD THAT - The Appellant according to his own case has paid only an amount of One Lakh Rupees i.e. maintenance of four months after May 2017. The arrears from July 2015 to April 2017 has not been paid by the Appellant within six months which was time allowed by the Court. When the Appellant did not honour its commitment under settlement can the wife be left in lurch by not able to press for grant of maintenance on non-compliance by the Appellant of the terms of settlement. The answer is obviously No . Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be interpreted in a manner as to advance justice and to protect a woman for whose benefit the provisions have been engrafted. The order passed in present case by Family Court reviving the maintenance application of the wife Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure by setting aside order dated 06.05.2017 passed on settlement is not hit by the embargo contained in Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure. The submission of learned senior Counsel for the Appellant that Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure prohibit the Magistrate to pass the order dated 05.01.2019 cannot be accepted - the High Court did not commit an error in rejecting the application filed by Appellant Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent powers of the High Court given Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Family Court to set aside its previous order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 2. Applicability of Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits courts from altering or reviewing their judgments except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. 3. Interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as a social justice legislation and its implications. 4. The role of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in the context of the Family Court's decision. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Family Court to Set Aside Its Previous Order: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to set aside its order dated 06.05.2017, which disposed of the application under Section 125 CrPC based on a settlement between the parties. The Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019, which set aside the previous order, was challenged by the appellant on the grounds that it was contrary to Section 362 CrPC. 2. Applicability of Section 362 CrPC: Section 362 CrPC states, "no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." The appellant argued that the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 violated this provision. The Supreme Court examined several precedents, including Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal (1981), and Mostt. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee (1990), which emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to do what the Code specifically prohibits. 3. Interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as a Social Justice Legislation: The Supreme Court recognized that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation aimed at providing maintenance to wives, children, and parents. The Court cited Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) to emphasize the need for purposive interpretation to achieve social justice. The Court noted that Section 125 CrPC allows for continuous jurisdiction of the Magistrate to alter or cancel maintenance orders based on changing circumstances, as indicated by Sections 125(5) and 127 CrPC. 4. The Role of Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC: The appellant's counsel argued that the Family Court's order was void under Section 362 CrPC and should have been set aside by the High Court under its inherent powers in Section 482 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. The Family Court's decision to revive the maintenance application was seen as an act of substantial justice, ensuring the protection of the respondent's rights under Section 125 CrPC. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 was not contrary to Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC allows for continuous jurisdiction to alter or cancel maintenance orders and that the Family Court's decision to set aside its previous order was justified to prevent injustice to the respondent. The High Court's rejection of the appellant's application under Section 482 CrPC was upheld, as it was in line with the principles of securing the ends of justice.
|
