Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vishwanadhulu Lingaiah vs Vishwanadhulu Kavitha And Anr. on 3 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD(CRI)649, 2003(1)ALT(CRI)97, 2003CRILJ961, II(2003)DMC283
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This petition is filed questioning the order dated 21-1-2002 in Criminal R.P. No. 5 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
2. The wife of the petitioner filed M.C. No. 11 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda seeking maintenance for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter i.e., 1st respondent, alleging that after the birth of the 1st respondent, petitioner drove her out of the marital house with a demand for more money. The case of the petitioner is that since he obtained a decree of divorce in O.P. No. 2 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, mother of 1st respondent is not entitled to maintenance and since 1st respondent is being maintained by her mother she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate ordered payment of maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the 1st respondent from the petitioner from the date of petition and dismissed the claim for maintenance of the mother of 1st respondent. Questioning the maintenance granted to the 1st respondent, 1st respondent filed Crl. R.P. No. 5 of 2001 before II Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed by the order impugned in this petition.
3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge were in error in awarding maintenance to the 1st respondent from the date of petition that too without recording reasons.
4. 1st respondent admittedly is the daughter of the petitioner and so he is bound to maintain her till she gets married. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of petition have to be recorded. In fact subsection (2) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. reads --
"Such allowance shall be payable from the date of order, or, if so ordered from the date of application for maintenance."
5. Therefore it is clear that depending on the circumstances of the case Court can order payment of maintenance from the date of petition also, but not for a period prior to the filing of the petition. It is now well settled that in appropriate cases the Court has power to award interim maintenance also. Since a father is bound to pay maintenance to the unmarried daughter had the 1st respondent filed a petition for interim maintenance she would have been paid interim maintenance. Admittedly the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is not the case of the petitioner that he sent any amount towards the maintenance of 1st respondent to her mother at any time. Therefore the Courts below directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the 1st respondent, his minor unmarried daughter, from the date of petition cannot be said to be erroneous and so I find no merits in this petition. Hence the petition is dismissed.