BIBI HALIMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the "Code") has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner (wife) under Section 125 of the Code has been disallowed in want of evidence.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner, who is wife of opposite Second party filed an application under section 125 of the Code vide Misc. Case No. 20 of 2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son. The case was transferred to the Family Court. Bhagalpur for disposal. Ths husband-opposite party appeared and filed his reply. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur by order dated 25.4.2005 allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 500.00 per month to the petitioner. It is said that the petitioner being poor rustic and semiliterate lady could not afford to engage a lawyer for looking after her case. She could not understand the language of the court properly. She also could not understand that the case was fixed for evidence since 7.7.2004, therefore, she failed to give evidence in support of her claim. On 12.8.2005 on being asked by the court whether she wants to give evidence or not she could not understand the question and gave a negative sign. On the next day i.e. 7.9.2005 the impugned order was passed and then she could know that her case has been dismissed. It is said that the petitioner wanted to give evidence in support of her case. The petitioner has no other source of income and therefore, she will starve without maintenance amount with her innocent child. The dismissal of the case shall ruin her life.

(3.) IT is admitted position that the application under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance was filed in the court some time in the year 2000. It is also admitted position that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur on 25.4.2005 allowed interim maintenance. The order of ad interim maintenance shows the existence of prima facie material regarding entitlement of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceeding. There is nothing in the impugned order dated 7.9.2005 to show that the petitioner neglected to attend the court on the dates fixed. It appears from the present application that the petitioner is still eager to contest the claim of her maintenance. It is also her stand that she has no source of income and she will starve without maintenance amount. It is clear that by not adducing evidence, the petitioner has not gained anything. A liberal attitude has to be adopted when the petitioner says that she could not understand the question asked by the court. The reason given by the petitioner for not adducing evidence does not appear to be absurd and unreasonable to warrant outright rejection of her claim for maintenance. As observed in the above decision. I also feel that such matter cannot be weighed in golden scales and any hairsplitting of facts and situation would not further ends of justice.