Shree Chandrashekhar,J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged quantum of the maintenance amount granted to his wife and minor son. He has challenged the judgment dated 11.04.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.25 of 2013 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and the minor son.
(2.) The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and it is in the nature of a social and beneficial provision. While adjudicating claim of a wife and the minor child for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the courts are required to keep in mind the object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The paramount consideration in a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to see that a wife or minor child does not suffer in destitution. In 'Vimala (K.) Vs. Veeraswamy (K.)' reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375, the object behind section 125 Cr.P.C has been indicated by the Supreme Court in these words : '3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term 'wife' in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term 'wife' consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision. Therefore, the law which disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance from her husband under Section 125, Cr.P.C, for the sole reason that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary form lacks legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly when the provision in the Code is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children. We are unable to find that the respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant is not entitled to maintenance.'
(3.) In the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner's wife has examined 3 witnesses and the petitioner has also examined 3 witnesses.;