NEW DELHI, Aug 6: Rajathi, a mother of two, charged her husband with deserting her before a Tamil Nadu trial court while seeking a maintenance of Rs 500 per month, the maximum provided under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but got a paltry Rs 200.The aggrieved husband appealed unsuccessfully in the sessions court against the grant of maintenance and then moved the Madras High Court.
The High Court set aside the orders of the trial court and sessions court and dismissed the petition of the wife for maintenance. Rajathi appealed before the apex court against the order of the High Court.
A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S Saghir Ahmad and D P Wadhwa held that the High Court had "wrongly exercised its jurisdiction" and restored the maintenance while awarding a cost of Rs 1,000 to her.
"It was not necessary for the High Court to examine the whole evidence threadbare to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
"Rather in a case under Section 125 of thecode, trial court is to take a prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the court to go into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail," Justice Wadhwa, who wrote the judgement for the bench, said.
The bench said, "Section (125) provides maintenance at the rate of Rs 500 per month. There is outcry that this amount is too small.
"In the present case, however, we are quite surprised that the court granted paltry amount of Rs 200 per month as maintenance which was confirmed in the revision by the sessions court but the High Court thought it fit to interfere in it."
The apex court said it was not going into the question if the High Court on examining the case on merit was correct in coming to the conclusion that the wife possessed sufficient means and was able to maintain herself.
"In the present appeal, we are only concerned to see if the High Court was justified in invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the code and we do not think the High Court was right," itsaid.
The bench said it was a case where the husband neglected or refused to maintain his wife. "High court did not consider the question if husband was having sufficient means. It rather unnecessarily put the burden on the wife to prove that she was unable to maintain herself," it added.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.