How to Fight CrPC crpc 125 Interim Maintenance | How to defend Interim Maintenance case
In this Video we discuss How to Fight CrPC crpc 125 Interim Maintenance and How to defend Interim Maintenance case with different Important Judgement.
According to Section 127 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever acquires any property knowing that it has been taken in committing any of the offenses described in Sections crpc 125 and 126, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which is seven Can be punished for any period that may extend to the year, and will also be liable to financial punishment and will also be punished by the confiscation of the property so obtained.
Applicable offense Obtaining property taken by war or looting described in Sections crpc 125 and 126. Punishment – seven years imprisonment + economic punishment + possession of property. It is a non-bailable, cognizable offense and is considered by the Sessions Court.
This crime is not negotiable.
Indian law entrusts the person with the responsibility of the maintenance of his wife, children and elderly parents. There are many decisions of the courts in relation to maintenance, in which a person is called social responsibility for the maintenance of his dependents. In the case of Jagir Kaun vs Jaswant Kaur AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1521, it has been said that it is not only the responsibility of the individual but also the social responsibility. In order to fulfill any social purpose, statutory provisions have been laid in the penal procedure code for the maintenance of wife and children. The question is why such maintenance is put in the process method? The purpose of sponsorship from sections crpc 125 to 128 of Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has never been to punish the person nor do these provisions fall under the category of penal provision. In the case of Kaniappan v. Akilandama AIR 1954 Madras 427, the Court stated that maintenance is not a religious law. The main objective of this method is to make the person aware of his / her own obligation towards the family and to establish a society where the person does not fail to feed his dependent people. It is worth mentioning that under Section 18 to 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, provisions have also been given for the maintenance of wife and children. The purpose of incorporating the provisions regarding these dependents under Section crpc 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is that under the Criminal Procedure Code, the abandoned wife or minor child or aged parent can get immediate treatment by the Magistrate’s Court and the husband, father , The son could not escape the responsibility of his maintenance by taking the illegitimate benefit of civil litigation under Hindu law as the case may be. The person has been entrusted with the responsibility of providing maintenance to the dependent people of his family under this section crpc 125 of the procedure law. Who will be entitled to maintenance? The following people are eligible for maintenance under Section crpc 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The wife who is unable to maintain herself. Minor child who is unable to maintain, whether the child is a religious or a wrongdoer or married or unmarried. If a child is unable to maintain himself due to any physical or mental disability or due to damage. Parents of the person who are unable to maintain themselves. Inability Under Section crpc 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a word is repeatedly used, that is, unable. The meaning of this word is that any person who is unable to maintain himself, only that dependent can ask for maintenance from the person on whom he is dependent. Being unable is the most important aspect of being a successor of maintenance. If a person is unable, then the order of maintenance will be given by the court. Adults and able to live their own life are not entitled to maintenance. The purpose of inserting this clause in the process law is that if a person has fully adequate means and the dependent people of such person are going through the difficulties of life, but the person having the means does not pay attention to these dependent people And if they leave them in poor conditions, then the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code Section crpc 125 are kept to deal with this terrible situation. It is also the responsibility of the state for those unable to live life, to feed them, but remember before the state, this responsibility falls on the person under whom such people are dependent. Married women are not allowed to work in Indian society and the world of women is very narrow. They are confined to the home bar, leaving no financial significance and financial source in their lives. In terms of money, she is extremely paralyzed, almost entirely dependent on her husband. He has this situation that if the person who is dependent on him leaves with him, then the woman will be deprived of even the bread cloth house. The status of women in the society has been reduced in such a way that they themselves do not even meet their basic needs. Section crpc 125 is most commonly used by Indian married women. Men abandon women after marriage and get in contact with any other women, in which case the former woman dependent on that man becomes inferior. Section crpc 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code acts as a brahmastra for women who are abandoned or divorced in this way. In the case of Ashish vs DC Tiwari it is said that- The provisions of Section crpc 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are in conformity with the social security provisions described in Articles 15 (3) and 39 of the Constitution.
In the Hindu family system, it is the moral and religious duty of the head of the family to discharge the responsibility of the maintenance of his wife, his children and his parents. If this system is abolished, family strength in the society will end and the abandoned wife, children and elderly parents will become destitute and will create a serious problem for the society. This is why Manu, the penetrating Smritikar of ancient Hindu law, had represented on every Hindu person that he should be bound to feed his aged parents, Sadhvi wife and children. Section crpc 125 Completely Secular Section There has been a controversy from time to time regarding this section, that this stream is not a secular stream and thus the family structure is fine according to Hinduism but according to other religions it is not right and such rules There have been attempts to impose other religions. Such views continued to come in relation to Section crpc 125. A famous case in Indore is Mohammad Ahmed Khan vs Shahbano Begum. The trial went up to the Supreme Court and the secularism of Section crpc 125 was also debated. There were uproar all over the country and the ‘Protection of Rights on Muslim Women Marriage Act 1986’ was passed in the Parliament of India. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has from time to time determined that section crpc 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a purely secular section and that this section does not belong to any particular religion and its provisions if it meets a particular religion. So this is just a coincidence because its provisions seem to be perfectly correct by looking at the present system of society and individuals. Such provision is in favor of women, children and old age and in Islam religion also the emphasis has been given on giving special protection to women, children and old, this provision is like that special protection. In the case of Chand Begum v. Hyderbeg, it has been said that under section crpc 125, the rights of marriage of husband and wife are not considered in the trial. Because the purpose of section crpc 125 is limited only to the right to maintenance. A case under this section is settled by a brief process whereby justice is obtained as quickly as possible. Maintenance rules for Hindus are covered under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act 1956. This codification law is a religious law, formulated by the Parliament of India for people of a particular religion. But the Code of Criminal Procedure is a secular law for citizens of all India, which applies equally to all, so the provisions of section crpc 125 are completely secular. Wife does not inherit maintenance in the following situation If the wife is perceiver. If she refuses to live with her husband without any reasonable reason. If both husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent. In the case of a married daughter, a magistrate may order maintenance only for the period until the daughter attains adulthood or her husband does not have adequate means to maintain maintenance. No limitation period has been prescribed under this section for seeking maintenance, hence, a long period of time is not allowed by the wife to enjoy her right.