In A First, Allahabad HC Delivers Judgment In English, Hindi & Sanskrit, Says Interim Maintenance Order Can't Be Enforced In S. 482 CrPC Plea

Today, the Allahabad High Court made history by delivering its judgment in three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit—a first among all High Courts. 

A bench of Justice Shiv Shankar Prasad authored the judgment in the above-mentioned three languages concerning the maintainability of Section 482 CrPC petition seeking enforcement of an interim maintenance order made u/s 125 CrPC.

The single judge wrote a Single judgment in three languages merged into a single document.

#JustIN | In a first, #AllahabadHighCourt delivers judgment in English, #Hindi, and #Sanskrit.

Justice Shiv Shankar Prasad today authored a judgment in three languages concerning the maintainability of S. 482 CrPC petition challenging an interim maintenance order u/s 125 crpc. pic.twitter.com/UtjdmyEwHa

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 11, 2024

In his Judgment, Justice Prasad held that an order granting interim maintenance to a wife in a proceeding initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a quasi-judicial civil and criminal order, and hence, no application under Section 482 CrPC either for quashing the same or for enforcing the same, is maintainable.

The Court ruled thus while dismissing an application filed by the applicants (wife and child) for enforcing the order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance allowance. The Court added that the proper remedy in such cases would be to approach the Family Court under Section 128 CrPC.

The facts in brief

The marriage of applicant no. 1 (Kanchan Rawat) was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 (Brijlal Rawat) in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals in December 2009. Initially, they lived together happily, but conflicts arose due to alleged dowry demands by Brijlal's family, and she was tortured and harassed concerning dowry demand.

As a result, she left the house of her in-laws and started living at her parents' house, where she delivered a male child in November 2011. Applicant no.1 and her parents tried to convince the in-laws of applicant no.1 to maintain her and her son, but they could not do the same.

As a result, she filed a case under Section 125 CrPC before a family court in Ghazipur. She also moved an interim maintenance application, which was allowed in June 2017, and a direction was issued to her husband/opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to her as well as her child towards maintenance allowance during the pendency of the case.

In compliance with the interim order, the Husband paid the interim maintenance allowance to the applicants regularly until December 2021, but he stopped the payment in 2022.

Despite court orders, the Husband only paid Rs. 4,000 in court after a delay of one and a half years, leaving Rs. 80,000 in arrears unpaid as of December 17, 2023. The Family Court then directed him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month to cover the Rs. 4,000 monthly allowance and the arrears. However, he did not pay either the arrears or the monthly allowance since then.

Seeking Rs. 80,000/in arrears of interim maintenance allowance from the husband, the applicants (wife and her child) filed the instant application under Section 482 CrPC at the High Court.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the intent behind Section 125 of the CrPC is to protect dependents who are unable to support themselves from starvation, misery and vagrancy. It is social justice legislation that was specifically passed to safeguard women, children and elderly parents.

"The main goal of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. of 1973 is to support abandoned and impoverished wives, neglected and abandoned children, and vulnerable, elderly and disabled parents. As a result, this provision promotes social welfare and social service. The Magistrate's authority is primarily preventative in character rather than penal or punitive. The time-consuming, troublesome, heavy, process of civil law and litigation was sought to be avoided by providing a simple, quick, limited relief. This is because compulsion is (to some extent) imposed upon those persons whose duty it is to support their dependents who are unable to support themselves," the Court remarked.

Further, the Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is characterized as quasi-civil and quasi-criminal. It is civil because it addresses civil rights, specifically the right to claim maintenance.

"When a maintenance order is disobeyed, the court can impose imprisonment for up to one month or until payment is made, making it criminal in that aspect. Overall, Section 125 proceedings are considered quasi-civil and quasi-criminal due to their dual nature," the Court said.

The Court noted that when an order for maintenance is issued, the recipient has two options: they can either seek enforcement through Section 125(3) CrPC, asking the court to imprison the defaulter, or they can approach the court under Section 128 of the CrP.C.

Further, taking into account the ruling of the top Court's judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others 2015 as well as the mandate of Sections 125 to 128 CrPC, the single judge held that an order granting interim maintenance, which is considered quasi-judicial with both civil and criminal implications, cannot be challenged or enforced through an application under Section 482 CrPC.

Case title - Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment