Shabnam Parveen v. Mohammad Firoz
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135790 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26007 of 2024 Applicant :- Shabnam Parveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Dwivedi,Shams Tabrez Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Mr. D.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayer :- "1. Quashed the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 (annexure no.1) passed by the learned Principle Judge Family Court, Varanasi in case No.95 of 2022 "Shabnam Parveen Vs Mohammad Firoz" arising out of interim maintenance application under section 125(1), Cr.P.C. and impugned order dated 03.05.2024 (annexure no.2) passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge Family Court no.2, Varanasi in case No.95 of 2022 "Shabnam Parveen Vs Mohammad Firoz" arising out of recall application pepper no.14-B for after recalling the order dated 03.06.2023 providing the opportunity to applicant on the subsequent interim maintenance application dated 12.06.2023 who application had annexed already recall with 2. further may be please to allow the interim maintenance to applicant and her two minor child. 3. further be please to providing the opportunity to applicant on the subsequent interim maintenance application dated 12.06.2023 who had already annexed with recall application dated 12.06.2023 during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the application for interim maintenance was moved by the applicant on 01.09.2022 wherein due to inadvertent mistake, the applicant could not mention about relief for her two daughters. Hence, a subsequent application was moved requesting for interim maintenance for the daughters. The aforesaid has been rejected by order dated 03.06.2023 against which a recall application was moved which has been rejected on 03.05.2024 hence, the present application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is unemployed and has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance. She has two minor daughters and hence, an interim maintenance application was also moved however, due to inadvertent mistake a specific prayer for granting interim maintenance for children was not made in the aforesaid application. The court concerned has rejected the subsequent application moved by the applicant for relief of granting interim maintenance to the minor daughters in a technical manner without application of judicial mind. He further submits that a recall application moved by the applicant has been rejected. It is settled law that in case due to ignorance or any inadvertent mistake a specific prayer has not been made, it has to be understood by the court concerned to grant such a relief for which they are entitled as per law. 5. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. The matter is being decided without issuing notice to opposite party no.2 as legal issue is involved in the matter. 7. From perusal of the records, this Court finds that due to matrimonial discord, the applicant (wife of opposite party no.2) resides at Varanasi alongwith her two minor daughters, but she is unable to maintain her daughters as she is unemployed, therefore, she moved an application demanding Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, which has not been mentioned in the earlier application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant. However, the said application has been rejected in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. The applicant has not got a single penny till date. 8. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Chaudhary reported in AIR 2019 SC 1186. Relevant paragraph no.9 of aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below :- "Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations." 9. In State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518, the Apex Court has held as under :- "17. Insofar as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") is concerned, Order 6 Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings. It says that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."
Decision
10. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 03.06.2023 and 03.05.2024 passed by the courts below have been set-aside. 11. It is directed that the concerned Court below shall decide the application for interim maintenance dated 12.07.2023 filed by the applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as well as decide the entire case (Case No.95 of 2022 "Shabnam Parveen Vs Mohammad Firoz", U/s 125 Cr.P.C.) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 12. With the above observations, the present application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Kalp Nath Singh