E-Paper
Second petition for maintenance is maintainable: HC
The Bench said that there may be some instances where a person, who for the time being, is able to maintain himself or herself, but thereafter, loses her/his resources because of changed circumstances, in such cases, a fresh right to claim maintenance may accrue
PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC can sustain, after the rejection of the first application, if there are changes in the circumstances, entitling a person to be a claimant under the said provision.
Justice Jyotsna Sharma dismissed the petition filed by one Shyam Bahadur Singh, challenging a lower court order directing him to pay ₹1,500 per month as maintenance to his first wife.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma was of the view that if the right to file an application for maintenance is foreclosed, it will frustrate the very purpose of Section 125 CrPC.
The Bench said that there may be some instances where a person, who for the time being, is able to maintain himself or herself, but thereafter, loses her/his resources because of changed circumstances, in such cases, a fresh right to claim maintenance may accrue.
The court observed this while upholding the January 2004 order of the court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North-East Railway, Banda) allowing the second application filed by a lady (respondent no. 2) under Section 125 CrPC.
The facts of the case were that respondent no. 2 (wife) had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, claiming maintenance from her husband, which was dismissed in January 1995 on certain grounds.
Thereafter, in 2003, she moved a second application under Section 125 CrPC on the premise that there has been a change in circumstances - remarriage by the husband, therefore, she is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.
This second application was allowed by the court of ACJM (Banda) in January 2004, directing her husband (petitioner) to pay ₹1,500 per month to her. The husband challenged the order in a criminal revision plea, which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Banda.
The husband challenged the order passed by both the lower courts before the high court in the current proceedings.
