G. M. LODHA. J. - (1.) THIS revision, arising out of an application filed by a neglected Muslim woman for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, for short, the Cr. P. C'.), is husband's petition against the order of the maintenance to the wife passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jhalawar, who has quashed the refusal order to grant of maintenance under S. 125, Cr. P. C. , passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Aklera. The husband has challenged the order of nominal amount of Rs. 100/- per month.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is a Proprietor of Cycle shop in the village Sarola Kalan District Jhalawar (Rajasthan), was married to the non-petitioner 5 years before the filing of the application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. After the marriage, the non-petitioner, as alleged in the application, remained with her husband for a period of 3 years THE husband petitioner is alleged to have maltreated, and used to beat the wife-non-petitioner THE husband is not properly maintaining his wife by not providing and fulfilling the basic requirement of life to her, and drove the wife out of the matrimonial home. THE husband has also performed the second marriage. The non-petitioner tiled a petition against the petitioner under section 125. Cr. P. C. in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aklera (Jhalawar-Rajasthan), asking for maintenance at the rate of Rs 100-/. The petitioner had opposed the claim of the non-petitioner, on various grounds. On February 3. 1979, the learned Magistrate rejected the claim of the no petitioner. Against that rejection, a revision petition was filed by the wife-non-petitioner, in the court of the District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, who, rejecting the contentions of the husband, granted an amount of Rs. l00/-as maintenance to the wife as mentioned above. Now, the husband is before this Court by revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a muslim wife cannot refuse to live with the husband on the ground of second marriage and. therefore, as Smt. Begum has deserted the husband on account of second marriage, no maintenance can be granted under S. 125, Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that even if the evidence of beating is not believed, yet under S. 125, Cr. P. C. as it stands, a wife can refuse to live with the husband if the husband took second marriage. Section 125, Cr. P. C. , in terms, provides that if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.
(3.) A look at the S. 125, Cr. P. C. would show that under S. 125 (1) (a), a person who, having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, can be asked by the court to pay a monthly maintenance to her at a rate not exceeding five hundred rupees. These provisions are too clear and patent warranting any further doubt and debate. S. 125. as it stands makes no exception for the persons to be governed by Muslim Personal Law. The religion professed by any spouse has no place in the scheme of these provisions. Whether the spouses are Hindus or Muslims, Christians or Parsis, Jains or Sikhs is wholly irrelevant in the application of these provisions because, section 125 is part of the Cr. P. C. It is not of the Civil laws which define and govern the rights and obligations of the parties belonging to particular religions. Such provisions which are essentially of a humanitarian nature, cut across the barriers of religion. The religion professed by the parties or the state of the personal law by which they are governed, cannot have any repercussion on the applicability of such laws unless within the frame work of the Constitution, their application is restricted to a defined category of religious groups or classes. The liability imposed by section 125 to maintain close relatives who are indigent is founded upon the individual's obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution. That is the moral edict of the law and morality cannot be clubbed with religion. Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 125 (1), which defines 'wife' as including a divorced wife, contains no words of limitation to justify the exclusion of Muslim woman from its scope. Section 125 is truly secular in character. This is what the Apex Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1) has held. So far as this Court is concerned, unless the validity of S. 125 Cr. P. C. is challenged and it is struck down on any ground whatsoever, it is the law of the land and this Court has to interpret as it stands. ;