JUDGMENT
K.J. Vaidya, J.
1. “What indeed is “THE DUTY” of the Court entertaining maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, towards the destitute dependants, viz., wives, children, parents, (as the case may be) claiming maintenance from the persons who are legally bound to maintain them, and for that purpose even the interim maintenance for their immediate survival?” This in substance is the most urgent, pressing question calling upon this Court to answer in the right earnest and thereby impress upon the concerned learned Magistrates as regards the imperative need to be on alert and active enough on their part to the immediate dire needs of the claimants struggling hard for their survival!! In other words, to make them conscious towards the question of basic human rights of the weakest and unenviable persons involved, to command and commission them as service oriented, indoctrinating them that they were the ‘welfare trustees’ of destitute wives, children and parents to stand by them in hour of their financial crisis like rapid-action force!!
2. Few relevant facts: Chanchalben, widow of Purushottam K. Patel, filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code against the Opponent -Madhukant Patel who happens to be her son in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, alleging that she had no personal source of income and her son refuses to maintain her, praying for the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. Pending the said application, she also prayed for interim maintenance allowance which the learned Magistrate was at once pleased to grant at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month by an Order dated 14-8-1991. This came to be challenged by her opponent son filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 290 of 1991 before the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, who in his turn by a Judgment and Order dated 2-1-1992 was pleased to partly allow the same, reducing said interim maintenance allowance to Rs. 100/- per month from Rs. 300/- giving rise to the present Criminal Revision Application.
3. Ordinarily, the High Court is indeed quite loath in interfering with the interlocutory orders, however, at the same time, once it is convinced that the impugned order is perverse and perpetrates manifest injustice and that the interest of justice impressively so warrants to interfere as of duty with the same then there indeed cannot be any fetters which can hold it back to come in its way of reviewing, modifying and setting aside the same!! Prima facie, to disown the mother by neglecting her to maintain and that too in her old age and when, on being requested to atleast give her the survival allowance, if the learned Magistrate in his discretion thought it proper to award the interim allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, it was simply unjust and improper on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to arbitrarily reduce the same to Rs. 100/- only, ignoring altogether the acute price rise in essential commodities alround on the one hand and the unquestionable imperative duty of the son to maintain old mother on the other hand!! In old age, the applicant not only would require square meal a day and a pair of clothes to put on but some medicines would also be required. From this meagre amount of Rs. 100/- per month, how she was expected to manage her needs where half of the amount may be consumed taking a cup of tea if she is so habituated much apart the respectful survival? When for any person under such circumstances the life truly turns into gamble, in state of sheer desperation, helplessness of struggling for survival, the apprehensive funky mind starts rotating, constantly like disc and under such circumstances, where her needle of needs or choice should stop to stand indicating the point of her satisfaction? At the point of feeding belly, i.e., getting the food only? Or at the point of pair of clothes to cover her shame and modesty? Or at the point of medicines to fight the old-age debility, and the disease? What to choose and what to let do? What a terrible state of embarrassment, frustration and uncertainty and that too of the MOTHER, a person to whom debt towards her is indeed simply irrepayable for lives to come!! In such type of cases the interim allowance is not only inevitably must and at the earliest, but the same be fair and reasonable enough to take care of the concerned destitute dependant, save and escape for any special and adequate reasons it is not possible! The reason is that these days unfortunately the good-many maintenance applications just linger on and on for years together without their be any end in sight though the object underlying Section 125 of the Code is quite specific and crystal clear to provide cheap, speedy and summary remedy to the destitute dependants down in the street all of a sudden so as to immediately render them some succour to withstand and survive the catastrophe and predicament in which they are placed!! If this much needed judicial consciousness and activism is not injected in the working of learned Magistrates and developed to take care of the most needy section of the society, the maintenance proceedings under Section 125 would lose all its benevolent significance and as a result what ought we know some frustrated soul may even brand such proceedings as ‘catching at straw’!! Quite rightly, perhaps!! Accordingly, let the Courts take care before so stigmatized!! It is only because these days the Courts are flooded with cases, marooned and stranded as they are and that take sometimes, even years to decide such applications, it has become necessary to pass some interim orders at the earliest possible, and accordingly when the Courts are passing some such interim orders, it is also and always duty bound to see that the interim amount awarded is not such petty and illusory one which just wets the lips but does not at all enter the mouth to quench the thirst, ridiculing the claimant and ultimately the administration of justice! While deciding the maintenance applications, be it at the stage of interim order or at the final stage, it is the paramount duty of every Court to see to it that the immediate justice is done right-now in time and in the right direction by taking appropriate care of the destitute-dependants placing itself in place of the hard pressed applicants and appreciating their day-to-day difficulties. Unlike other Criminal cases, the cases under Section 125 pertaining to the maintenance are firstly, partly to redress the civil right and accordingly quasi-judicial in nature and secondly, the Court is not called upon to punish the accused for the alleged offence committed which can take some time for which the Court may not be in undue hurry, but the maintenance is essentially a question of immediate need for survival and therefore, this sort of cases are required to be attended first and decided on “A priority basis”! To appreciate the gravity and urgency of the situation in maintenance proceeding, to give an illustration, the maintenance application is just like a call summoning fire-brigade to extinguish the fire, where the brigade people cannot be allowed to be lethargic and take their own time to run to rescue the victims to avoid the situation whereby by the time they reach the urgency is lost and fire doing the maximum damage which could have been avoided by prompt action!! To give another illustration, drowning person needs immediate rescue operation, likewise that is the urgency and importance of attending the maintenance problem. Accordingly, as to what factors are required to be taken into consideration at the initial stage, while entertaining the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code, this Court on earlier occasion has already given some guidance in a decision rendered in the case of Miss Shilpa Bansilal Shah v. Bansilal K. Shah reported in 1993 (1) GLH 753 : 1993 (1) GLR 223, the relevant paragraphs whereof is reproduced hereunder (at Page No. 234 of GLR):
…Under such circumstances, true to the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to deliver speedy justice, it appears to us that whenever any maintenance application is filed before the Court by any discarded, disabled dependants (be it under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 or under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other such maintenance application under any Law), then in that case, in order to see that they are not made to suffer any further more, unnecessarily, the Court entertaining such application is advised, as a duty, to follow the following guidelines, viz.
(i) To first of all find out whether the opponent from whom the maintenance is claimed is serving, that is to say, whether he is an employee either of the State or Central Government or Public/Private Corporation, or any private institution or of any individual; as the case may be, by collecting the relevant material in the said regard from the petitioner. On getting the same, it should thereafter make the Head of the said Department a necessary party to the said proceedings by issuing a notice in the said regard.
(ii) Thereafter, to call upon the opponent to produce on record the latest salary and allowance certificate, date of his retirement, etc.
(iii) To further call upon the opponent to file an affidavit stating therein what are his other moveable and/or immovable properties in his name and possession alongwith the latest saving bank account passbook, shares, securities and other relevant documents pertaining to any investment anywhere.
(iv) At the end of the ad interim or final proceedings, after determining the maintenance amount, the Court shall further direct the said Head of the department first to deduct the said amount from the salary of opponent and give the same to the petitioner and only thereafter to release the pay packet to the respondent.
(v) That while doing above, the trial Court shall also expressly impress upon the department concerned that in the event of non-compliance with the directions of the Court, he shall be liable for the Contempt of Court.
(vi) That further, in case the opponent does not fall in any of the categories streamlined above, then in that case, it will equally be duty of the Court to see that the maintenance proceedings before it are given top most priority to decide and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, avoiding unjust and indiscreet adjournments even by awarding ad interim relief, cost or exemplary cost, as the facts and circumstances of the given case warrant, taking special care that harassment and agony of the claimants are as far as possible be minimised, if cannot be totally eliminated.
4. Bearing in mind the aforesaid guidelines in the instant case also, the learned Magistrate is directed to join the General Manager, Saraspur Cotton Mills Limited (who may appear through any responsible officer), as a party to the proceedings, directing him to produce before the Court the register/file; as the case may be, of total amount of salary drawn (i) every month, and (ii) during the course of last year starting from 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 with a view to enable him to have the correct and authentic picture in assessing the financial condition of the son so that just and proper amount of maintenance could be awarded. In case the opponent is found to be earning more, then despite the fact that Applicant has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- only, it shall be the duty of the Court to give additional amount subject to limit of Rs. 500/- per month. To the above list may be added one more guideline; viz., (vii) to call for the update particulars with regard firstly to the total amount accumulated and withdrawn in the P.F. Account and secondly, loan if any taken and the instalments for the repayment thereof by the Opponent, etc. etc.
5. Taking into consideration the special facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly in the first instance when the interim maintenance allowance granted is not shown to be disproportionate to financial strength of the opponent son and is accordingly not impossible for him to pay, and in the second instance, claimant is none-else but opponent’s own mother who brought him to life with all pain and sufferings in this world, it appears that the learned Magistrate was indeed more than quite, just and right in awarding the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and in that view of the matter, the Sessions Court while exercising its limited revisional powers ought not to have hastily over-stepped the discretionary jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and substituted its reasoning for the same unless it reached the definite conclusion that the interim award of maintenance was perverse and therefore, not maintainable!!
6. In the result, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
7. The impilgnetf judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month Jo the petitioner, is restored and confirmed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.