S.125 CrPC | Not Obligatory For Claimant To Implead 'All Eligible Persons' Having Sufficient Means In Proceedings For Maintenance: Uttarakhand HC

While dismissing a revision petition against such non-impleadment, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari held,

"Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. opens with the expression "if any person". This reflects the legislative intent that any one of the several persons may be chosen for claiming maintenance and it is not obligatory on the part of the claimant seeking maintenance to name all the persons having sufficient means to be proceeded against. In other words, it is for the claimant to decide whether he/she wants maintenance from any one or all the persons, who are liable to maintain him/her."

Factual Background

The claimant (respondent no. 2 herein) has four children. However, she moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month from her husband and ₹20,000/- per month from her elder son (the revisionist herein). In the said application, revisionist prayed for impleading his other siblings as respondents on the ground that they are well placed in life and therefore, they are also equally responsible for providing maintenance to their mother.

However, the prayer made by the revisionist was rejected by the Judge, Family Court. Being aggrieved by such order, this revision petition was filed before the High Court.

Court's Observations

The Court, at the outset, held that the Judge, Family Court has given valid reasons for rejecting impleadment application by observing that it is for the person claiming maintenance to decide from whom he/she wants maintenance. Further, it held that the Court cannot compel the claimant to implead her other children as respondents to the maintenance application.

The Court stressed on the terms "if any person" as mentioned in Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. Thus, it was of the view that the legislative intent was that any one of the several persons may be chosen for claiming maintenance and it is not obligatory on the part of the claimant seeking maintenance to name all the persons having sufficient as respondents. Therefore, the claimant is free to decide whether he/she wants maintenance from any one or all the persons, who are liable to maintain him/her.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order made by the Court below and the revision petition was dismissed. While concluding, the Court remarked,

"Even otherwise also, impleadment is a concept of civil law, which is engrafted in Code of Civil Procedure and there is no provision in Cr.P.C., which enables a respondent to a proceeding to seek impleadment of some other person in the said proceeding."

Case Title: Manish Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

Case No.: CRLR No. 736 of 2022

Order Dated: 6^th December 2022

Coram: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Counsel for the Revisionist: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Lata Negi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 45