Plea U/S 125 CrPC Cannot Be Dismissed On The Ground That The Wife Has Sufficient Means After Selling Property: Allahabad HC
- In Smt. Krishna Devi vs State of UP the Hon’ble All. HC has held that a wife does not lose her right to maintenance under section 125 CrPC merely on the ground that she has the sufficient means to sustain herself and her children after selling off some property.
- In this case, the revisionist/applicant Krishna Devi had filed an application under section 125 CrPC before the Family Court stating that she had married respondent no. 2 (husband) in 1967 and that three children were born out of wedlock.
- It was alleged that the husband had maintained her till 1983, but thereafter the maintenance was stopped by him. She claimed that she was dependent on her brother, who used to provide her with financial assistance, but he had suddenly gone missing. Thus, she sought maintenance from her husband as she had no source of income.
- Her application was rejected by the Family Court on the ground that she had not mentioned why she was living separately from her husband, she had sold the property at Farrukhabad and received money after the same, which clearly showed that she had sufficient means to maintain herself and her two children.The husband had also alleged that revisionist had illicit relations with a person, and the same was not denied by her.
- The Hon’ble HC observed that the Family Court had not taken into account the fact that since the husband had remarried, he had deserted the revisionist, and hence she was living separately.
- The Court also observed that merely because the revisionist had property in Farrukhabad which she had sold to maintain herself and her three children, it could not be inferred that she had lost her right to maintenance under 125 CrPC. If some income had been received by her out of selling the property, the same would not sustain her forever.
- Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) SCC wherein the Apex Court had held that the status of both the husband and the wife has to be looked into, and even if the wife is working and has some means of income, she is entitled to maintenance as per the status of the husband. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to the dependent wife and children for their financial support so that they do not fall into destitution and vagrancy.
- Thus, allowing the revision, the Hon’ble HC held that the Family Court had passed the order without appreciating the facts in totality. The decision appeared to be influenced by factual aspects which were not proven and without adducing them on record. The matter was remanded to the lower Court for fresh adjudication.
Plea In Mathura Court To Perform ‘Purification’ Rituals With Gangajal In Shahi Idgah
- Just days after the Mathura District Court observed that a suit to remove the Shahi Idgah Mosque, allegedly built on the land of Shri Krishna Janambhoomi was maintainable, in Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj vs Sunni Centre Wakf Board, the National Treasurer of All India Hindu Mahasabha, Dinesh Kaushik has filed an application before a local Court in Mathura seeking permission to perform purification rituals inside the Shahi Idgah Mosque claiming that the sanctum sanctorum of the Keshav Dev Temple was once located there.
- In the instant application, the applicant has alleged that the existence of the Idgah Mosque was hurting his sentiments, and therefore, he sought permission to enter inside the sanctum sanctorum (garbhgreh) to perform the rituals with Gangajal and Yamunajal.
- It may also be noted that the applicant, Dinesh Kaushik has already moved an application before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, seeking permission to consecrate Laddu Gopal inside the Idgah Mosque and to perform pooja there.
- Last week, an application was also moved before a local Court in Mathura with a prayer to seal the disputed Idgah Mosque complex so that the religious character of the property remains unchanged. The application also sought to increase the security around the premises of the Mosque so that any kind of movement is banned and security officers should also be appointed. This petition would most likely be heard on 1 July.
- All that is left for us is to wait and see how this drama unfolds.
The Qutub Minar Row: How Can You Claim A Legal Right For Restoration Of Something That Happened 800 Years Ago, Asks Court
- In Tirthankar Lord Rishabh Dev through next friend Hari Shankar Jain vs Union of India, a Saket District Court in Delhi has reserved its order in the appeals preferred against the order of the Civil Judge dismissing a Civil Judge order dismissing the suit which alleged that the Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid situated within the Qutub Minar Complex was built in place of a temple complex and sought restoration of the same.
- The original petition was filed before a District Court in Delhi on behalf of Jain deity Tirthankar Rishabh Dev and Hinu God Vishnu by advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Ranjana Agnihotri. The petition included a short history which purportedly displayed by the ASI which narrates how 27 temples were demolished by Qutub-ud-din Aibak and the Quwwat-ul-islam Mosque was raised in their place by reusing the material.
- The plea sought to declare that Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesh, Goddess Gauri, Lord Hanuman and Jain deity Tirthankar Lord Rishabh Dev have the right to be restored within the temple complex at the site of Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque complex after rebuilding it with the same honour and dignity.
- The lower Court had rejected the suit after noting that the same was hit by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act and rejected the plaint under order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, for non-disclosure of cause of action. It was also observed that the wrongs of the past cannot be the basis of disturbing the present peace and that allowing the same would disturb the present fabric of the constitution and its secular character.
- Opposing the plea, the Archaeological Survey of India has told the Court that Qutub Minar is not a place of worship and alteration of the existing structure is not permissible. The ASI also claimed that Qutub Minar is a monument, and that no one can claim fundamental rights over a structure. It also added that no right to worship can be granted at this place.
- It was further stated by the ASI that there is no provision in the AMSAR Act of 1958 under which worship can be started in any living monument.
- The Hon’ble District Court has reserved the judgement for the 9th of June.