Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - A Contradiction?
family clat_pg beginner concept_confusionI'm totally stumped by the 'reasonable and fair' requirement in Section 125 CRPC. The section is supposed to provide for maintenance for the wife and children of a destitute person, but then it comes with this 'reasonable and fair' condition. Isn't the whole point of Section 125 to ensure that the needy ones get some help? If the income of the husband is more than the wife's, doesn't it automatically make it reasonable for her to get some maintenance? I've read some judgments - the Kerala High Court in K.S. Lakshmi v. K.S. Narayanan(1976) - where the court said that this condition should be liberally interpreted, but then there are others where the court has been super strict about what constitutes 'reasonable and fair'. Is it just me or is this entire doctrine confusing as heck?
Meh, I don't think it's a contradiction at all, sir. Section 125 is all about maintenance for families, and it's not a direct contradiction to the principles of CPC. It merely provides a supplementary remedy for womenfolk who are deserted by their husbands. It's more like a support system, not a conflicting provision. We need to understand it in the context of women's rights, not CPC's framework, na?