Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Netrapal Singh vs Muskan And Anr on 26 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1109 / 2015
Netrapal Singh son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, by-caste, Jat, resident
of Village Nagladani, tehsil Sepau, District Bholpur (Rajasthan)
----Non-applicant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Muskan daugher of Netrapal, aged about 10 years.
2. Tanvi daughter of Netrapal, aged about 5 years, both minor
through their natural guardian their mother Smt. Saroj wife of
Netrapal daughter of Shri Ramprasad, by-caste Jat, resident of
Subhash Colony, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Applicant/Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, P.P. for State None present for private respondent. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 26/05/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner and the maintenance has been awarded with effect from date of preferring application i.e. 04.12.2010 without mentioning any reason for doing so.
The Apex Court has held in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and Anr. Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 385 as follows:-
Section 125 CrPC, therefore, impliedly requires the court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts. For good reason, evident from its order, the court may choose either date. It is neither appropriate nor desirable (2 of 2) [CRLR-1109/2015] that a court simply states that maintenance should be paid from either the date of the order or the date of the application in matters of maintenance. Thus, as per Section 354(6) CrPC, the court should record reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities. The purpose of the provision is to prevent vagrancy and destitution is society and the court must apply its mind to the options having regard to the facts of the particular case.
In view of above it was mandatory on the part of the Judge Family Court to give reasons as to why the maintenance is being ordered with effect from the date of presentation of application instead of date of order.
None present for the private respondent.
I have gone through the material available on record. After going through the judgment of the Apex Court I find that in the impugned order there is no reasoning mentioned for awarding maintenance with effect form date of presentation of application. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, impugned order dated 10.06.2015 is set aside only to the extent that the maintenance will be payable from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 04.12.2010 and the matter is remitted back to the Judge Family Court, Bharatpur with the direction to hear the parties on the above point and pass an appropriate order on this particular point afresh. Parties are directed to be present before the Trial Court on 03.07.2017.
The revision stands disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS), J.
Dheeraj/Jr,P,A,/42