1. The appellant-husband has filed this appeal taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court at Pune on July 30, 1991, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to his two-years old male child from the date of the application preferred under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on Jan. 17, 1991.
2. The 1st respondent-wife and the appellant were married in Pune and cohabited there. However, it was the case of the 1st respondent that she was ill-treated and was compelled to return to her parental house where she delivered respondent No. 2 who at the time when she made the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance was six months old. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- per month for the child. The application was resisted on the ground that the 1st respondent was divorced on April 9, 1991 as per the Muslim Law governing the parties and, therefore, the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The learned Judge of the Family Court partly agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-husband with regard to the right of claiming maintenance by the 1st respondent-wife and came to the conclusion that under the said Act of 1986 the 1st respondent-wife was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the learned Judge of the Family Court was of the view that the right of the child (the 2nd respondent) to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was absolute till it became major and after taking into consideration the monthly income of the appellant as between Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,200/-, he granted maintenance to the child as stated hereinabove.
3. At the hearing, Mr. Gangakhedkar on behalf of the appellant urged that even a child is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code as per the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Noor Jamaal Habib Momin v. Haseena w/o Noor Jamaal, (1993 Mah. L.J. 749). The Division Bench was presided over by Mr. Justice V.A. Mohta and one of us (M.F. Saldanha, J.) was a member. A perusal of the said judgment shows that in Para 11 it has been clearly mentioned that
"Needless, therefore, to mention that right of the minor to claim maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code is in no way affected by this order."In other words, the Division Bench has not held that a minor child is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the parties are Muslims. Therefore, the judgment of this Court relied upon by Mr. Gangakhedkar is of no use to him.
4. As regards the merits of the appeal, it may be noted that at the time when the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made, the child, i.e. respondent No. 2, was only six months old. We are told at the Bar that when the impugned order was made, the child was hardly about two years old. Therefore, the child was too minor to maintain itself on its own. We are constrained to make this observation because Mr. Gangakhedkar has submitted that unless it is proved that the child was unable to maintain itself, it is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant husband has given evidence that his per day income was only Rs. 20/-. The learned Trial Judge, on scanning the evidence, came to the conclusion that even if the appellant was a driver of a taxi, his income per month would not be less than Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,200/-. We have absolutely no doubt in our minds that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Judge was correct. But, in addition, we may point out that the Counsellor's Report (Ex. 6) also shows that the appellant-husband was working as a driver in a private sector and he was earning approximately Rs. 1350/- to Rs. 1400/-per month. That being the monthly income of the appellant, a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. in favour of a minor child cannot be said to be excessive in any manner.
5. We, thus, find no merits in this appeal and dismiss the same with an order that the appellant shall pay Rs. 500/- as cost of the appeal to the 1st respondent-wife.
6. Certified copies of the judgment shall be furnished to the parties expeditiously, out of turn.
Comments