Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1041 of 2020)
Section 125 and 482 of CrPC
Brief facts of this are that the respondent had filed an application for maintenance for herself and her two minor children. The Appellant had also applied the application for the divorce the settlement was made between the parties stating that the appellant will send the respondent the amount of Rs.25,000/- which appellant did fulfilled but just for 4 months. Execution Petition was filed by the respondent, application was made under section 125(3)of the CrPC for the enforcement of the Order. Family Court did rejected the application of the Respondent. Than afterwards Respondent had filed an application for recall of the Order. In this application the appellant had objected that the respondent had backed out so the payment was stopped. Now,challenging the order of the Family Court the appellant had filed the application under section 482 of CrPC which was rejected by HC. Aggrieved by the decision of the HC appellant has filed this appeal.
Whether the order passed by the Family Court of setting aside order, disposing of application was contrary to Section 366 CrPC?
They took into account two cases and observed the two for the following aspects:
It was held in this case w.r.t Section 125 of CrPC that it becomes duty of the Courts to advance the cause of social justice while giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between law and society. The role of the Court is to understand the purpose of law in the society and to enforce the law to achieve that purpose.It was stated that Section 125 of CrPC does not become functus officio. The section contains express provisions where the order passed under this section can be cancelled or altered.
This case was regarding the maintenance for the wife to which the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that this judgement was not applicable but the court did not agreed with their opinion.
The appeal was dismissed and it was stated by the SC that the HC did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant under section 482 of CrPC. The Family Court in passing the order has done substantial justice in reviving the maintenance application of the wife which needs no interference by HC.
Patents Act, 1970 [Section2(1)(j), Section 2(1) (ja), Section 3(b), Section 3(d).