Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs Ekta Upadhyay on 7 October, 2014
ASHISH
C.R.R (F) No.185 of 2014 (O&M) -1- 11:54
2014.10.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.M-30805 of 2014 in/and
CRR(F) No.185 of 2014
Date of decision : 07.10.2014
Sanjeev Kumar Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
Ekta Upadhyay
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
C.R.M-30805 of 2014 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 195 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
CRR(F) No.185 of 2014
This revision has been filed against the order of the Family Court, Gurgaon dated 19.12.2013 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance for the minor son from the date of application.
C.R.R (F) No.185 of 2014 (O&M) -2-
It is not disputed that the petitioner is earning an annual salary of Rs.6 lakhs. The only argument of learned counsel is that no reasons were given for awarding the maintenance to the minor son from the date of the application. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shail Kumari Devi and another vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, reported as 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 842, to contend that for awarding maintenance from the date of the application special reasons are required to be recorded. I find that this contention has not born out from the record. In para Nos.46 and 47 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"46. Again, maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of `special reasons' though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub- section (6) of Section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him.
47. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to C.R.R (F) No.185 of 2014 (O&M) -3- grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our Judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub section (l) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect."
From the perusal of these two paragraphs I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the reasons have to be recorded for awarding the maintenance but as regards the date from which the application is allowed only an express order is required. In the present case, no reason has been given by the learned counsel as to why the son of the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance from the date of the application. To my mind, a child is entitled to maintenance from the date of his birth and merely because his mother does not file an application for some time should not disentitle such a child to maintenance from the date of his birth. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order.
Petition is dismissed.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Criminal Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
October 07, 2014 JUDGE
ashish