- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tejram v. Sunanda
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The husband (applicant Tejram) married Sunanda in 1985; they had a son, Devendra. They cohabited for about six years. The wife contracted tuberculosis and was treated at a sanatorium; during treatment she left the husband's house with the minor son. In 1993 the husband filed an application for dissolution of marriage and a decree of divorce, alleging it was impossible to live with the wife. The wife filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance for herself and the minor son. The 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division & J.M.F.C., Nagpur, by order dated 17-10-1994, partly allowed the wife's application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 400 per month to the wife and Rs. 200 per month to the minor son, effective from the date of the application (31-12-1993). The husband filed a criminal revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C., directly in the High Court challenging that maintenance order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the criminal revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. was maintainable directly in the High Court when the Sessions Judge also has concurrent jurisdiction and the applicant had not first approached the Sessions Court;
- Whether there was evidence that the husband neglected to maintain the wife and the minor son such that the maintenance award under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was justified;
- Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded (Rs. 400 to the wife and Rs. 200 to the minor son per month) was excessive or beyond the husband's financial capacity.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments (Husband / Counsel Shri A.D. Vyawahare)
- There is no evidence that the husband neglected to maintain his wife and minor son.
- The maintenance amounts awarded (Rs. 400 to the wife and Rs. 200 to the son) are excessive and beyond the husband's financial capacity, and thus the lower courts' orders should be set aside.
- Implicit procedural contention: the husband approached the High Court by way of criminal revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C.
Respondent's / Wife's Position (as reflected in pleadings and evidence)
- The wife alleged in her Section 125 application that the husband refused and neglected to maintain her and the minor son, and that he had married another woman, Rajani, and was residing with her.
- The wife's application stated that the husband served as a lineman in M.S.E.B., earning Rs. 3,000 per month plus overtime, and had income from agricultural land (as pleaded in the application).
- At trial, the husband admitted he had filed for divorce and that it was impossible for him to stay with the wife; he also admitted to drawing a salary of Rs. 2,000 per month in cross-examination.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in two stages: a preliminary procedural analysis and a merits analysis.
-
Procedural analysis:
The Court held that Section 397, Cr.P.C. confers concurrent revision jurisdiction on both the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Ordinarily, when jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, the aggrieved party should first approach the inferior court (the Sessions Judge) unless exceptional reasons justify going directly to the High Court. The applicant filed the revision directly in the High Court though he could have filed it before the Sessions Judge, and no exceptional reasons were shown. On this basis alone the application deserved dismissal. The Court emphasized it does not encourage filing revisions under Section 397 directly in the High Court when they can be challenged first in the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.
-
Merits analysis:
The Court reviewed the evidence considered by the trial court. The husband had filed for divorce alleging impossibility of living with the wife. The wife's Section 125 application alleged neglect of maintenance, that the husband was living with another woman, and that he had income from employment and land. Although contested, the husband admitted in cross-examination that he drew a salary of Rs. 2,000 per month and had instituted divorce proceedings. On these facts the trial court's finding—that the husband refused and neglected to maintain the wife and minor son and that he had sufficient means to pay maintenance—was supported by the record. Accordingly, the award under Section 125 was justified on evidence presented.
Regarding quantum, the Court relied on the husband's own admission of earning Rs. 2,000 per month. Given that admission, the Court found that an award of Rs. 400 per month to the wife and Rs. 200 per month to the minor son could not reasonably be characterized as excessive or exorbitant. The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the maintenance quantum in revisional jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The criminal revision application was dismissed. The Rule was discharged and the revision was dismissed.
Implications:
- The maintenance order of the 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division & J.M.F.C., Nagpur (Rs. 400 per month to the wife and Rs. 200 per month to the minor son from 31-12-1993) stands.
- The dismissal was based on both procedural grounds (failure to first approach the Sessions Judge under the concurrent jurisdiction conferred by Section 397, Cr.P.C.) and merits (sufficient evidence of neglect and husband's admitted means; quantum reasonable).
- No new precedent was set by this opinion; the decision applies only to the parties and the matter at hand.
1. Heard Shri A.D Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is no evidence of non-applicant No. 1 wife that the applicant husband has neglected to maintain her and the child Devendra and, therefore, the courts below were not justified’ in awarding the maintenance to the wife and the son. Shri Vyawahare also contends that the amount of maintenance awarded by the courts below to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and to the child at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month is excessive and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant and, therefore, the orders passed by courts below deserve to be set aside.
3. There is no dispute that the applicant Tejram. (for short ‘the husband) married non-applicant No. 1 Sunanda (for short ‘the wife) in the year 1985 and out of the wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 Devendra minor son was born. The husband and the wife cohabited for about six years and thereafter the wife contacted tuberculosis and while the husband was employed at Chhindwara, he got the wife admitted in the T.B Sanatarium at Chindwara. The treatment of the wife continued up to the year 1991 and during that time, the wife left the house of the husband along with the minor son. It is also not disputed that in the year 1993, the husband has filed an application for dissolution of marriage and a decree for divorce in the competent Court and the said proceedings are pending and in the petition for dissolution of marriage and divorce, the husband has averred that it was not possible for him to stay with the wife. The wife made an application for grant of maintenance under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself as well as for her minor son. The said proceeding under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were contested by the husband. Evidence-was recorded and the 20th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and J.M.F.C Nagpur, by an order dated 17-10-1994 partly allowed the application filed by the wife under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month to the minor son from the date of the application i.e 31-12-1993. The said order is under challenge before this Court in criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. First of all the application deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant has not filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, having jurisdiction over the matter. It is undoubtedly true that S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction of revision concurrently on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court, but it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two Courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the superior Court is made out. Since the applicant has come directly to the High Court, though he could have filed the revision before the Sessions Judge and there *are no exceptional reasons, the revision application deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. This Court does not encourage filing of revision application under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directly before this Court if it could be challenged in revision before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction of revision over the matter.
5. Even otherwise, on merits, this revision has no force. It would be seen that the husband has made an application for dissolution of marriage and a decree for divorce before the Court having competent jurisdiction, inter alia on the ground that it has become impossible for him to reside with the wife.’ After the application for dissolution of marriage and seeking decree of divorce was filed by the husband, the wife made an application, seeking maintenance before the 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C Nagpur, on 31-12-1993, stating therein that the husband has referred and neglected to maintain her and her minor son and that he has been living with the second wife Rajani and has threatened the present applicant. It is also stated in the application that the husband has unlawfully married one woman by name Rajani and residing with her at Sounsar. It is stated in the application that the husband is serving in the M.S.E.B as a Lineman and is getting the salary of Rs. 3000/- per month plus overtime and also derives income from the agricultural land. Though the application was contested by the husband, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he was drawing the salary of Rs. 2000/- per month and that he had filed the petition for divorce against the wife in the Court and it was impossible for him to stay with the wife. Obviously on these facts, there was sufficient ground for the wife to live separately and since the husband refused to maintain her and the minor son, she as well as the minor son were entitled to the award of maintenance. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, and J.M.F.C Nagpur, holding that the husband has neglected and refused to maintain the wife and the minor son and that the husband has sufficient means to pay maintenance, is based on evidence on record and justified.
6. As regards quantum of maintenance, though according to the wife, the husband was drawing the salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the M.S.E.B, according to the husband's own admission, he was drawing the salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In view of the admission of the husband that he was drawing the salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month, the award of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and to the minor son at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, by no strength of imagination, can be said to be excessive or exorbitant, and is reasonable. The quantum of maintenance, therefore, being reasonable warrants no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
7. Consequently, there is no force in this criminal revision application and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.
8. Revision dismissed.
Alert