Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal writ petitions filed by Shri Gopinath Govind Teli against his mother, Smt. Sundarabai Govind Teli, challenging orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, dated 12/10/2017. The background is a maintenance dispute under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had directed the petitioner to either deposit ₹5,000/- in the respondent's account or alternatively provide medical care and food in that amount. The petitioner filed a revision challenging this order, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, who modified the order to only direct deposit of ₹5,000/- in the respondent's account, quashing the alternative direction. The respondent also filed a revision challenging the alternative direction, which was allowed with the same modification. The petitioner then filed two separate writ petitions challenging these orders. The High Court noted that both petitions essentially challenge the same direction to deposit ₹5,000/-. The court observed that the alternative direction to provide medical care and food was impractical and rightly set aside by the revisional court. The High Court upheld the order directing the petitioner to deposit ₹5,000/- per month in the respondent's account, finding no illegality or perversity in the revisional order. The petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Alternative Direction - The petitioner was directed by the JMFC to either deposit ₹5,000/- in the respondent's account or alternatively provide medical care and food in that amount. The revisional court modified the order to only deposit ₹5,000/-. The High Court upheld the monetary payment direction, setting aside the alternative direction as impractical. (Paras 2-3) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 CrPC - Modification of Order - The revisional court allowed the respondent's revision and modified the JMFC's order to direct only monetary payment. The High Court found no error in this modification, as the alternative direction was not feasible. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order directing the petitioner to deposit ₹5,000/- in the respondent's account or alternatively to provide medical care and food in that amount is sustainable, and whether the revisional court's modification to only monetary payment is correct.
Final Decision
Both criminal writ petitions dismissed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to deposit ₹5,000/- in the respondent's account is upheld. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Alternative direction to provide medical care and food
- Modification of order by revisional court
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against revisional order
