TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Maintenance under CrPC awarded to wife and child; revision dismissed for not approaching Sessions Court and quantum upheld.</h1> Application concerns entitlement to maintenance under the criminal law where the husband left cohabitation and the wife and minor son sought relief. The ... - Issues: (i) Whether a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC filed directly in the High Court is maintainable where revision could have been filed before the Sessions Judge; (ii) Whether the maintenance awards under Section 125 CrPC to the wife and minor son were justified on the evidence and in appropriate quantum.Issue (i): Whether the revision filed directly in the High Court under Section 397 CrPC was maintainable.Analysis: Concurrent jurisdiction exists under Section 397 CrPC in both the Court of Sessions and the High Court. Where jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, ordinarily the aggrieved party should first approach the inferior court unless exceptional grounds for directly approaching the superior court are shown. No exceptional grounds were demonstrated for bypassing the Sessions Judge.Conclusion: Revision was not maintainable before the High Court for want of prior approach to the Sessions Judge.Issue (ii): Whether the award of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to the wife and minor son was supported by evidence and whether the quantum was excessive.Analysis: Evidence established that the husband had filed dissolution proceedings and that the wife lived separately claiming neglect. The husband admitted a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000. The lower court found the husband had sufficient means and had neglected to maintain the wife and child. The maintenance amounts awarded (Rs. 400 per month to the wife and Rs. 200 per month to the minor son) were proportionate to the admitted income.Conclusion: The findings of neglect and sufficient means are supported by evidence and the quantum of maintenance is reasonable; no interference is warranted.Final Conclusion: The revision lacks merit both procedurally and on merits; the revision is dismissed and the maintenance order is sustained.Ratio Decidendi: Where revisionary jurisdiction is concurrently available in an inferior court and the High Court under Section 397 CrPC, the aggrieved party must ordinarily first approach the inferior court unless exceptional reasons justify direct resort to the High Court; maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be sustained where evidence shows neglect and the quantum is reasonable in relation to admitted means.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
