Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Chandra Prabha Devi on 15 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990CRILJ1884, II(1991)DMC158
JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J.
1. In this criminal revision the only point requiring determination is whether in awarding maintenance to wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C. from the data of application, reason for order making maintenance payable from the date of application it necessary.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision are that parties were married in February, 1982. Their relations became estranged. On 17th July, 1984 wife moved application for maintenance before the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr. P.C. alleging cruelty and desertion by the husband. This application was contested by the husband who made counter allegations of cruelty and desertion. He denied allegations of the wife Learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the parties. He upheld the case of wife and awarded maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month to wife and directed that the maintenance would be payable from the date of decision. Against this wife preferred revision before the Sessions Judge and contended that the maintenance should be made payable from the date of her application. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge disposing of the revision held :
"It is settled principle of law that the amount of maintenance shall be directed to be paid from the date of application and not from the date of order. If any interim maintenance was ordered, it was adjustable towards the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the wife but the learned Magistrate could not have ordered that the revisionist is entitled to maintenance from the date of decision. If it transpired to the learned Magistrate that the revisionist earned some money during the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. learned Magistrate could have curtailed the amount of maintenance but in the instant case there is nothing on record like this, hence condition fixed by the learned Magistrate in the order that the maintenance shall be started to be paid from the date of decision is illegal and is not maintainable".
With above reasons learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision. He modified the order of the Magistrate and declared the meintenance payable to wife from the date of application.
3. Being aggrieved husband has now come to this Court. Section 125(2) Cr. P.C. runs as under :
"Such allowances shall be payable from the date of order, or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance".
4. A bare reading of this sub-section makes it clear that ordinary rule is that maintenance to wife is payable from the date of order. Exception to this ordinary rule is an order making maintenance payable from the date of application. When an exception has to be made in the ordinary rule making the maintenance payable from the date of application by an order, the order must be supported by reason or reasons. Observation of the learned Magistrate to the contrary stating that contrary is the settled law is not correct. In this connection reference can be made for guidence to the case of Kumari Lachhmani v. Ramu of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1983 Crimes, 590. It would be proper to lay down the law that in cases where the Magistrate or the revisional Court orders making the maintenance payable from the date of application, the order must be supported by reason or reasons.
5. In the instant case learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason for making maintenance payable from the date of application. Hence the order is not sustainable in law and is kept to be quashed.
6. Revision is allowed. Order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge making the payment payable from the date of application is quashed. Applicant should pay maintenance from the date of decision i.e. 20-11-88.