Shahnaz and another v. Anas, under section

Thereafter Smt. Shahnaz, wife of revisionist along with opposite party no.2 moved an application for recovery of maintenance amount i.e. Rs.88,000/- on 25.4.2024 and the said application was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.704 of 2024, copy of which is annexed as Annexure no.3 to this revision.

6. After issuance of notice in the aforesaid case the revisionist purchased a L.I.C. Bond of Rs.80,883/- in the name of opposite party no.2.

7. On the date fixed, i.e. on 11.6.2025, in the case when the revisionist gave aforesaid L.I.C. Bond of Rs.80,883/-, purchased in the name of the opposite party no.2, as well as the remaining maintenance amount of Rs.7,117/- in cash to the mother of the opposite party no.2 before the concerned Family Court.

8. The mother of the opposite party no.2 accepted the cash amount but refused to accept the L.I.C. Bond, stating that it was purchased without her consent and the revisionist is himself the nominee in said L.I.C. Bond. The copy of the L.I.C. Bond, alongwith the receipt - dated 28.12.2024, is annexed as Annexure no.4 to this criminal revision.

9. Due to the aforesaid objection, raised by the mother of the opposite party no.2, as stated, the concerned Family Court orally directed the revisionist to give an undertaking to the effect that he will not withdraw the Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 3 of 11 L.I.C. Bond, prior to its maturity and the opposite party no.2 will herself withdraw the said L.I.C. Bond, after attaining the age of her majority. The revisionist gave his undertaking to the same effect on same very day, i.e. on

11.6.2025. Copy of the undertaking dated 11.6.2025 is annexed as Annexure no.5 to this revision. It is to be noted that this aspect of the case is not borne out from the impugned order.

10. Despite the aforesaid undertaking, the Family Court passed the impugned order dated 22.7.2025, whereby directed the revisionist to pay the remaining maintenance of the opposite party no.2 in cash to her mother, giving finding that the L.I.C. bond, purchased in the name of the opposite party no.2, cannot be considered/treated as payment towards maintenance amount awarded.

11. It is stated that the learned Family Court did not consider the fact that if the cash maintenance amount is paid to the mother of the opposite party no.2, the mother of the opposite party no.2 will use the same for her personal expenses in place of the expenses of the opposite party no.2.

12. It is further stated that while passing the impugned order, the Family Court did not consider the fact that the maintenance claim of the mother of the opposite party no.2 was rejected vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2024, as such, if the maintenance amount, directed to be paid to the opposite party no.2, is given to the mother of the opposite party no.2 in cash, the same will provide direct benefit to her in place of the opposite party no.2.

13. It is further stated that after the maturity of aforesaid L.I.C. Bond, the opposite party no.2 will receive the amount of Rs.2,04,360/-, which will be helpful for her better future. Copy of the benefit and coverage table of L.I.C. Bond is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no.6 to this criminal revision. Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 4 of 11

14. It is further stated that the revisionist has also filed a case, under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for taking the custody of the opposite party no.2, which is pending before the Family Court.

15. Learned A.G.A. opposing the present revision stated that just to avoid the payment of the amount awarded by the Family Court vide order dated

04.04.2024, under challenge, the present revision has been filed.

16. In continuation, it is stated that in terms of the order of the Family Court, the revisionist is under obligation to Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application, and Rs.4000/- from the date of order, i.e. 04.04.2024 till she attains age of majority.

17. It is also stated that on one pretext or other, the revisionist is avoiding the payment of the amount of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court vide order dated 04.04.2024.

18. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

19. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be apt to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation to dealing with the applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, observed as under:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: "In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16) Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 5 of 11

16. "… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

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."

9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

15. "… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

6. "… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It 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. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

11.Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned the statute. In  Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 6 of 11 neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

21. In the case of Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the applicability of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in relation to the proceedings/case instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the "aims and objects" of Section 125 Cr.P.C., observed as under:- "23. Before we proceed to look into the legislative scheme of Section 125 CrPC, we need to notice few rules of interpretation of statutes when the court is concerned with the interpretation of a social justice legislation. Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation which orders for maintenance for wives, children and parents. Maintenance of wives, children and parents is a continuous obligation enforced. This Court had occasion to consider the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] . In paras 13.3 to 18, the following has been laid down: (SCC pp. 196-98) "13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.

14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasised that the courts have to adopt different approaches in "social justice adjudication", which is also known as "social context adjudication" as mere "adversarial approach" may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently: 'It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that "social context judging" is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the Judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 7 of 11 achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication. [ Keynote address on "Legal Education in Social Context" delivered at National Law University, Jodhpur on 12-10-2005, available on last accessed 25-12-2013.]

15. The provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from "adversarial" litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.

16. The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes patterns of behaviour. It reflects the values of society. The role of the court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a living organism. It is based on a given factual and social reality that is constantly changing. Sometimes change in law precedes societal change and is even intended to stimulate it. In most cases, however, a change in law is the result of a change in social reality. Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too. Just as change in social reality is the law of life, responsiveness to change in social reality is the life of the law. It can be said that the history of law is the history of adapting the law to society's changing needs. In both constitutional and statutory interpretation, the court is supposed to exercise discretion in determining the proper relationship between the subjective and objective purposes of the law.

17. Cardozo acknowledges in his classic [ Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1921).] '… no system of jus scriptum has been able to escape the and he elaborates: it.' 'It is true that codes and statutes do not render the Judge superfluous, nor his work perfunctory and mechanical. There are gaps to be filled. … There are hardships and wrongs to be mitigated if not avoided. Interpretation is often spoken of as if it were nothing but the search and the discovery of a meaning which, however obscure and latent, had nonetheless a real and ascertainable pre-existence in the legislator's mind. The process is, indeed, that at times, but it is often something more. The ascertainment of intention may be the least of a Judge's troubles in ascribing meaning Says Gray in his lectures [ John Chipman Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law.]: statute. … a "The fact is that the difficulties of so-called interpretation arise when the legislature has had no meaning at all; when the question which is raised on the statute never occurred to it; when what the Judges have to do is, not to determine that the legislature did mean on a point which was present to its mind, but to guess what it would have intended on a point not present to its mind, if the point had been present."

18. The court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonise results with justice through a method of free decision — libre recherché scientifique i.e. "free scientific research". We are of the opinion that there is a non-rebuttable presumption that the legislature while making a provision like Section 125 CrPC, to fulfil its constitutional duty in good faith, had always intended to give relief to the woman becoming "wife" under such circumstances. This approach is particularly needed while deciding the issues relating to gender justice. We already have examples of exemplary efforts in this regard. Journey from Shah Bano [Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 8 of 11

Thereafter Smt. Shahnaz, wife of revisionist along with opposite party no.2 moved an application for recovery of maintenance amount i.e. Rs.88,000/- on 25.4.2024 and the said application was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.704 of 2024, copy of which is annexed as Annexure no.3 to this revision.

6. After issuance of notice in the aforesaid case the revisionist purchased a L.I.C. Bond of Rs.80,883/- in the name of opposite party no.2.

7. On the date fixed, i.e. on 11.6.2025, in the case when the revisionist gave aforesaid L.I.C. Bond of Rs.80,883/-, purchased in the name of the opposite party no.2, as well as the remaining maintenance amount of Rs.7,117/- in cash to the mother of the opposite party no.2 before the concerned Family Court.

8. The mother of the opposite party no.2 accepted the cash amount but refused to accept the L.I.C. Bond, stating that it was purchased without her consent and the revisionist is himself the nominee in said L.I.C. Bond. The copy of the L.I.C. Bond, alongwith the receipt - dated 28.12.2024, is annexed as Annexure no.4 to this criminal revision.

9. Due to the aforesaid objection, raised by the mother of the opposite party no.2, as stated, the concerned Family Court orally directed the revisionist to give an undertaking to the effect that he will not withdraw the Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 3 of 11 L.I.C. Bond, prior to its maturity and the opposite party no.2 will herself withdraw the said L.I.C. Bond, after attaining the age of her majority. The revisionist gave his undertaking to the same effect on same very day, i.e. on

11.6.2025. Copy of the undertaking dated 11.6.2025 is annexed as Annexure no.5 to this revision. It is to be noted that this aspect of the case is not borne out from the impugned order.

10. Despite the aforesaid undertaking, the Family Court passed the impugned order dated 22.7.2025, whereby directed the revisionist to pay the remaining maintenance of the opposite party no.2 in cash to her mother, giving finding that the L.I.C. bond, purchased in the name of the opposite party no.2, cannot be considered/treated as payment towards maintenance amount awarded.

11. It is stated that the learned Family Court did not consider the fact that if the cash maintenance amount is paid to the mother of the opposite party no.2, the mother of the opposite party no.2 will use the same for her personal expenses in place of the expenses of the opposite party no.2.

12. It is further stated that while passing the impugned order, the Family Court did not consider the fact that the maintenance claim of the mother of the opposite party no.2 was rejected vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2024, as such, if the maintenance amount, directed to be paid to the opposite party no.2, is given to the mother of the opposite party no.2 in cash, the same will provide direct benefit to her in place of the opposite party no.2.

13. It is further stated that after the maturity of aforesaid L.I.C. Bond, the opposite party no.2 will receive the amount of Rs.2,04,360/-, which will be helpful for her better future. Copy of the benefit and coverage table of L.I.C. Bond is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no.6 to this criminal revision. Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 4 of 11

14. It is further stated that the revisionist has also filed a case, under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for taking the custody of the opposite party no.2, which is pending before the Family Court.

15. Learned A.G.A. opposing the present revision stated that just to avoid the payment of the amount awarded by the Family Court vide order dated

04.04.2024, under challenge, the present revision has been filed.

16. In continuation, it is stated that in terms of the order of the Family Court, the revisionist is under obligation to Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application, and Rs.4000/- from the date of order, i.e. 04.04.2024 till she attains age of majority.

17. It is also stated that on one pretext or other, the revisionist is avoiding the payment of the amount of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court vide order dated 04.04.2024.

18. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

19. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be apt to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation to dealing with the applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, observed as under:- "9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: "In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16) Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 5 of 11

16. "… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

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."

9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

15. "… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

6. "… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It 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. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

11.Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned the statute. In  Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 6 of 11 neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

21. In the case of Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the applicability of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in relation to the proceedings/case instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the "aims and objects" of Section 125 Cr.P.C., observed as under:- "23. Before we proceed to look into the legislative scheme of Section 125 CrPC, we need to notice few rules of interpretation of statutes when the court is concerned with the interpretation of a social justice legislation. Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation which orders for maintenance for wives, children and parents. Maintenance of wives, children and parents is a continuous obligation enforced. This Court had occasion to consider the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] . In paras 13.3 to 18, the following has been laid down: (SCC pp. 196-98) "13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.

14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasised that the courts have to adopt different approaches in "social justice adjudication", which is also known as "social context adjudication" as mere "adversarial approach" may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently: 'It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that "social context judging" is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the Judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 7 of 11 achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication. [ Keynote address on "Legal Education in Social Context" delivered at National Law University, Jodhpur on 12-10-2005, available on last accessed 25-12-2013.]

15. The provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from "adversarial" litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.

16. The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes patterns of behaviour. It reflects the values of society. The role of the court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a living organism. It is based on a given factual and social reality that is constantly changing. Sometimes change in law precedes societal change and is even intended to stimulate it. In most cases, however, a change in law is the result of a change in social reality. Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too. Just as change in social reality is the law of life, responsiveness to change in social reality is the life of the law. It can be said that the history of law is the history of adapting the law to society's changing needs. In both constitutional and statutory interpretation, the court is supposed to exercise discretion in determining the proper relationship between the subjective and objective purposes of the law.

17. Cardozo acknowledges in his classic [ Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1921).] '… no system of jus scriptum has been able to escape the and he elaborates: it.' 'It is true that codes and statutes do not render the Judge superfluous, nor his work perfunctory and mechanical. There are gaps to be filled. … There are hardships and wrongs to be mitigated if not avoided. Interpretation is often spoken of as if it were nothing but the search and the discovery of a meaning which, however obscure and latent, had nonetheless a real and ascertainable pre-existence in the legislator's mind. The process is, indeed, that at times, but it is often something more. The ascertainment of intention may be the least of a Judge's troubles in ascribing meaning Says Gray in his lectures [ John Chipman Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law.]: statute. … a "The fact is that the difficulties of so-called interpretation arise when the legislature has had no meaning at all; when the question which is raised on the statute never occurred to it; when what the Judges have to do is, not to determine that the legislature did mean on a point which was present to its mind, but to guess what it would have intended on a point not present to its mind, if the point had been present."

18. The court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonise results with justice through a method of free decision — libre recherché scientifique i.e. "free scientific research". We are of the opinion that there is a non-rebuttable presumption that the legislature while making a provision like Section 125 CrPC, to fulfil its constitutional duty in good faith, had always intended to give relief to the woman becoming "wife" under such circumstances. This approach is particularly needed while deciding the issues relating to gender justice. We already have examples of exemplary efforts in this regard. Journey from Shah Bano [Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Criminal Revision No.895 of 2025 Page No. 8 of 11