9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an application Under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance on the ground that she is the legally married wife of respondent who has sufficient means to maintain her, she is unable to maintain her, the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain her and she is not disqualified under any of the provisions enumerated in Section 125 of the Code. There appears to be long drawn series of litigations between parties, with which we are not presently concerned. On 26-11-1990 appellant filed an application Under Section 125 of the Code before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Cuttack. Subsequently it was transferred to the Family Court on 30-3-1991 and interim maintenance was allowed by the said Court on being moved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal has submitted that the approach of learned Judge, Family Court is erroneous. Considering the fact that appellant has been ventilating her grievances since about two decades, the inference that there was no justifiable reason for her absence or that she was not vigilant is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for respondent however, submitted that learned Judge, Family Court had no power of restoration and he was not correct in his conclusion that he had power to restore. It is however, submitted that rejection has been rightly done. 4. We. shall first deal with the contention relating to the power of learned Judge, Family Court to restore an application Under Section 125 of the Code, which has been dismissed for default. As indicated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a power which has been specfically prohibited by the Code. This Court had the occasion to consider whether the original Court dealing with an application Under Section 125 of the Code has inherent powers. In Srimati Sabita Sahoo v. Captain Khirod Kumar Sahoo, (1990) 3 OCR 315 and Dr. P.P. Wilson v. K. Sundaramma and Anr., (1991) 4 OCR 324, it was held that no Court except High Court can exercise inherent powers. The first case related to an application for amendment and the second case related to. an application for stay during pendency of an application Under Section 126(2) of the Code.' In the aforesaid premises, the inevitable conclusion is that no Court other than the High Court has inherent powers. Observations in Rekha Jena's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt powers, restoration can be directed by exercise of implied powers. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Court in exercise of ancillary and incidental powers can direct restoration even though there is no specific provision in the Code. The situation may be viewed in the background of Section 126(2) which perirnits a husband to seek setting aside of an ex parte order against him. 5. Keeping in view the benign provision in Section 125 enacted to in into economic condition of neglected wife and discarded divorcees and to save enumerated persons from vagrancy and destitution, Welfare taws must be so read as to be effective delivery systems of salutary objects sought to be served by the Legislature. When beneficiaries are weaker sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
