Allahabad High Court
Smt. Poonam Devi vs Narendra Kumar on 26 May, 2022
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. RESERVED ON 23.3.2022 DELIVERED ON 26.5.2022 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 136 of 2012 Revisionist :- Smt. Poonam Devi Opposite Party :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chandra Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Jaiswal,Shishir Chandra Srivastav,Suyash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mukul Rakesh AND Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 176 of 2012 Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mukul Rakesh,Suyash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Satish Chandra Srivastva Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. These are two Criminal Revisions against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, by which Criminal Misc. Case No.760 of 2004, Smt. Poonam Devi vs. Narendra Kumar, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Poonam Devi (wife/revisionist) has been allowed.
2. Smt. Poonam Devi has filed the Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 inter alia praying for enhancement of the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 2.8.2004 and has also prayed for awarding the cost of Rs. 15,000/- lump sum, whereas Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 has been filed by Shri Narendra Kumar, who is the husband of Smt. Poonam Devi, praying for setting aside the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 760 of 2004.
3. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of the common factual matrix and law as well as the common judgment, therefore, these two criminal revisions are being decided by the common judgment and order.
4. Heard Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel, who has put in appearance for the husband Narendra Kumar in Criminal Revision No.176 of 2012 and Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, who has appeared for Smt. Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012.
5. Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist Smt. Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 has submitted that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/claimant Smt. Poonam Devi remained pending since 2.8.2004 and thus eight years were taken for deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is summary proceeding and therefore, she is entitled for the maintenance allowance to be given from the date of the filing of the application under Section 125 i.e. 2.8.2004.
6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/claimant/Poonam Devi has further submitted that at least 1/3rd of the amount of the income of the husband ought to have been awarded in her favour. He submits that as less than 1/3rd amount has been awarded by means of the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, therefore, the amount awarded in favour of the claimant/revisionist is liable to be enhanced.
7. Refuting the aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the revisionist/claimant/Poonam Devi, Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar has submitted that there was no reason for the trial court to award the maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application. The order impugned is ambiguous as learned trial court has wrongly interpreted the statement of the opposite party 2 i.e. Smt. Poonam Devi recorded before this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 : Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Ram Narain. He submits that the trial court has erroneously drawn adverse conclusion against the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar for filing a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Unnao ignoring the fact that respondent no.2/wife/Poonam Devi is permanent resident of Unnao.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that Smt. Poonam Devi (revisionist/wife) was married with the Narendra Kumar (revisionist/husband) on 28.4.2002. The dispute arose between the parties after six months of their marriage. The revisionist/Poonam Devi was living separately away from her husband (revisionist/Narendra Kumar) for justified reasons as her father had died and her in-laws were forcing her to sell her ancestral land so that Maruti Car be purchased. From the evidence led before the trial court it has come on record that the Revisionist/Poonam Devi was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for demand of dowry.
9. It transpires from the impugned order that learned trial Court, while deciding the case, has framed three issues i.e. (i) whether the husband has no source of income; (ii) whether the husband is neglecting his wife and is not maintaining his wife; and (iii) whether the wife is able to maintain herself. The finding given by the learned trial court is extracted below:-
"प्रस्तुत मामले में साक्ष्य से स्पष्ट है कि यादिनी अपने पति से अलग रह रही है। वादिनी के अनुसार उसके पिता की मृत्यु हो चुकी है और उसके पति -सास-ससुर तथा परिवार के अन्य सदस्य, पिता की जमीन अपने नाम कराने के लिए वादिनी पर दबाव डालने लगे तथा वादिनी को प्रताड़ित करने लगे और उसके पति व ससुराल वाले वादिनी से अपने पिता की जमीन बेचकर मारुति कार खरीदने के लिए कहते थे तथा मानसिक व शारीरिक रूप से प्रताड़ित करते थे। यह भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि वादिनी की ससुराल वालों ने उसका तीन माह का गर्भ गिरवा दिया और वादिनी के चाचा राम नरायन जब उससे मिलने आये, तो वादिनी के ससुराल वालों ने वादिनी को जबरदस्ती उनके साथ भेज दिया और कहा कि जब तक अपने पिता की जमीन बेचकर मारुति कार खरीद नहीं लेती हो, ससुराल वापस मत आना। वादिनी के चाचा द्वारा वार्तालाप कर मामले को सुलझाने का प्रयास किया गया, किन्तु वादिनी के पति वादिनी को ले जाने के लिए तैयार नहीं हुए।
प्रतिवादी-पक्ष द्वारा वादिनी द्वारा अभिकथित तथ्यों से इन्कार किया गया है, और यह अभिकथित किया गया है कि वादिनी, प्रतिवादी के यहां कोई काम नहीं करती थी और वह अपने चाचा के साथ स्वयं चली गई थी। प्रतिवादी उसे कई बार लेने गया, किन्तु वह वापस नहीं आई और अन्ततः प्रतिवादी ने मा० उच्च न्यायालय में एक हैवियस कारपस दाखिल किया, जिसमें वादिनी ने उपस्थित होकर बताया कि वह अपनी मर्जी से चाचा के साथ रह रही है और प्रतिवादी के साथ रहने से इन्कार कर दिया। उसके बाद प्रतिवादी ने पारिवारिक न्यायालय, कानपुर में वाद संख्या-88/ 2004 - अन्तर्गत धारा-9 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम प्रस्तुत किया। उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रतिवादी ने उन्नाव न्यायालय से विवाह-विच्छेद की डिकी प्राप्त कर ली है और दूसरी शादी भी कर ली है, जिससे उसे एक 12 महीने की पुत्री भी है। वादीनी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में बताया है कि वह विदा होकर जब प्रतिवादी के घर आई तो पहली बार सालभर रही। इस बीच उसके मायके वाले आते-जाते थे और वह भी आती-जाती थी। वादिनी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह भी बताया कि वह ससुराल से बिदा होकर नहीं आई, बल्कि उसको मारपीट कर निकाल दिया गया था साक्षी ने यह भी बताया कि वह दिनांक 10.06.2003 को अपने मायके गई थी, तो उसके पिता बिदा कराने आये थे, तो मोटरसाइकिल की चाभी फेककर कहा कि दहेज में कार दोगे, तभी विदा करायेंगे। साक्षी ने बताया कि उसने उच्च न्यायालय में बयान दिया था कि उसकी हिम्मत नहीं है कि वह अपने पति के साथ जाना चाहे, इसलिए अपने चाचा के साथ जाना चाहती है दोनों पक्षों की साक्ष्य से स्पष्ट है कि वादिनी तथा प्रतिवादी की शादी के 6 माह बाद विवाद उत्पन्न हुआ। वादिनी के अनुसार प्रतिवादी तथा उसके परिवार के लोग दहेज के लिए उसको प्रताउित करते थे और उसके पिता की मृत्यु के बाद कहते थे कि यह जमीन बेचकर मारुति कार खरीद कर दे, जबकि प्रतिवादी का कथन है कि वादिनी घर में कोई काम नहीं करती थी और छोटी-छोटी बातों में विवाद उत्पन्न करती थी। साक्ष्य से स्पष्ट है कि पार्दिनी के परिवार के लोग शादी मैं जो मोटरसाइकिल प्रतिवादी को दिये थे, यह वादिनी ने वापस ले लिया है, क्योंकि प्रतिवादी कार की मांग करता था।
प्रतिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस में उल्लेख किया गया है कि वादिनी दिनांक 08.06.2003 को अपने चाचा के साथ चली गई थी और जब प्रतिवादी उसे विदा कराने गया तो वह मायके में नहीं मिली, वह अपनी बहन के यहां गई हुई थी। उसके बाद पुनः प्रतिवादी, वादिनी के घर गया, तो वादिनी के परिवार वालों ने प्रतिवादी के साथ अभद्रता की तथा मोटरसाइकिल यू0पी0-35सी 9387 छीन ली। दिनांक 24.08.2007 को प्रतिवादी ने प्रधान न्यायाधीश, पारिवारिक न्यायालय, कानपुर में धारा-9 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम का वाद संस्थित किया। प्रतिवादी ने दिनांक (02.04 2008 को एक हैवियस कारपस रिट संख्या-216/2004 प्रस्तुत किया, जिसमें वादिनी ने अभिकथन किया कि वह प्रतिवादी के साथ नहीं रहना चाहती है, बल्कि अपने चाचा के साथ जाना चाहती है। प्रतिवादी ने धारा-9 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम का वाद खारिज कराकर उन्नाव में धारा-13 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम में वाद संख्या-226/2005 दिनांक 18.05.2005 को संस्थित किया, जिसमें वादी को डिक्री प्राप्त हो गई। दिनांक 27.11.2009 को प्रतिवादी ने शिवरानी नामक औरत से विवाह कर लिया. जिससे एक पुत्री हुई, जिसका नाम वैष्णवी है और उसकी उम्र 12 माह है। इस प्रकार स्पष्ट है कि प्रतिवादी वादिनी को दहेज के लिए प्रताड़ित करता था तथा वादिनी पर दबाव बनाता था कि वह अपने पिता की जमीन बेचकर मारुति कार खरीदे और उसके लिए उसे मानसिक व शारीरिक रूप से प्रताड़ित करता था। प्रतिवादी ने हैवियस कारपस की रिट तथा धारा 9 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम का वाद भी संस्थित किया था और बाद में उन्नाव में धारा-13 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम की याचिका प्रस्तुत कर विवाह-विघटन की डिकी भी प्राप्त कर ली और पुनः शिव रानी नामक औरत से शादी कर ली है, जिससे उसे एक पुत्री भी है, जिसकी उम्र लगभग 12 माह है। इस प्रकार समस्त परिस्थितियों से स्पष्ट है कि प्रतिवादी, बादिनी को जानबूझकर उपेक्षित करते हुए उसका भरण-पोषण नहीं कर रहा है।
प्रतिवादी-पक्ष की ओर से देव नरायन हालदार बनाम श्रीमती अनुश्री हालदर ए आई आर 203 सुप्रीम कोर्ट 3174 का सन्दर्भ प्रस्तुत किया गया है, जिसमें माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा यह अवधारित किया गया है कि यदि दहेज मांग करने की साक्ष्य तथा वादिनी को शारीरिक व मानसिक रूप से प्रताड़ित करने की साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर न हो और वादिनी स्वयं अलग रह रही हो, तो यह भरण-पोषण भत्ता प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है इसी प्रकार संजय सुधाकर भोसले बनाम कतिना किमिनल रिवीजन अप्लीकेशन नं०- 226/2002 जो दिनांक 08.04.2008 को मा० उच्च न्यायालय बॉम्बे की औरंगाबाद पीठ द्वारा निर्णीत किया गया है, का भी सन्दर्भ प्रस्तुत किया गया है, जिसमें यह अवधारित किया गया है कि दहेज की मांग की पुष्टि न हो और वादिनी स्वयमेव अलग रह रही हो, तो यह भरण-पोषण भत्ता प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी नहीं है।
प्रस्तुत मामले में, जैसा कि ऊपर विश्लेषित किया गया है, प्रतिवादी द्वारा वादिनी को दहेज के लिए प्रताड़ित किया जाता था तथा उस पर दबाव डाला जाता. था कि वह अपने पिता की जमीन को बेचकर प्रतिवादी के लिए मारुति कार खरीद कर दे और इसी सम्बन्ध में प्रतिवादी ने उसे मारपीट कर भगा दिया था। प्रतिवादी ने हैवियस कारपस रिट प्रस्तुत की तथा कानुपर न्यायालय में धारा-9 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम का वाद प्रस्तुत किया, जिसे प्रतिवादी ने खारिज करा लिया और धारा-13 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम का वाद उन्नाव में प्रस्तुत किया, जबकि प्रतिवादी ने एक वाद अन्तर्गत धारा-9 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम कानपुर में प्रस्तुत किया था और वह कानपुर में रहता था, तो उन्नाव न्यायालय में धारा-13 हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम का वाद प्रस्तुत करने का क्या औचित्य था। जनपद उन्नाव में प्रतिवादी द्वारा वाद प्रस्तुत किया गया. जिससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रतिवादी येन-केन-प्रकारेण वादिनी से छुटकारा पाना चाहता था और उन्नाव न्यायालय से विवाह विघटन की डिक प्राप्त कर दूसरा विवाह भी कर लिया जिससे उसे एक पुत्री भी है, किन्तु प्रतिवादी ने इस तथ्य का अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में अथवा किसी अन्य साक्ष्य के माध्यम से पत्रावली पर प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है। उक्त तथ्य प्रतिवादी की प्रतिपरीक्षा में सामने आया है, जिससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रतिवादी ने इस तथ्य को छिपाने का प्रयास किया और प्रतिवादी का यह आचरण भी इस बात का द्योतक है कि वादिनी द्वारा आरोपित तथ्य सही है। अतएव, यह कहना समीचीन नहीं है कि वादिनी स्वयं प्रतिवादी से अलग रह रही है और दहेज की मांग अथवा मानसिक व शारीरिक प्रताड़ित किये जाने की तथ्य को सिद्ध नहीं कर सकी।
जहां तक, प्रतिवादी की आय का सम्बन्ध है, यह निर्विवादित है कि प्रतिवादी एच०ए०एल०, कानपुर में टेक्निशियन के पद पर कार्यरत है और उसे रु० 15,000/- प्रतिमाह प्राप्त होते हैं। जहां तक इस तथ्य का प्रश्न है कि उसके परिवार में उसके भाई, पिता तथा अन्य सदस्य हैं, जिनका भरण-पोषण भी प्रतिवादी पर आश्रित है, स्वीकार करने योग्य नहीं है, क्योंकि प्रतिवादी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा मे यह स्पष्ट किया है कि वह अपने परिवार से अलग रहता है। इस प्रकार प्रतिवादी के पास पर्याप्त साधन है. उसके बावजूद भी वह अपनी पत्नी का भरण-पोषण नहीं कर रहा है।
जहां तक, वादिनी की आय के स्रोत का प्रश्न है, प्रतिवादी ने अपनी आपत्ति में अभिकथन किया है कि वादिनी के बाबा के पास लगभग 20 बीघा कृषि योग्य भूमि है तथा उसके चाचा के पास भी 25 बीघा जमीन है। पिता की मृत्यु के बाद यादिनी अपनी कृषि योग्य भूमि की देखभाल करती है और इससे वादिनी की मासिक आय रु०5000/- है। प्रतिवादी द्वारा लिखित बहस में भी इस बात का उल्लेख किया गया है कि वादिनी की ग्राम पहाड़पुर में सात बीघा कृषि योग्य भूमि है, जिसमे वादिनी का 1/3 हिस्सा है तथा पहाडपुर गाँव में सात कमरे का पक्का मकान है, जिसकी कीमत नो लाख रुपये है, जिसमें वादिनी का 1/3 हिस्सा है। कृषि योग्य भूमि से वादिनी रु०60.000/- वार्षिक की आय प्राप्त करती है तथा बाग से रु०15,000/- आय प्राप्त करती है तथा दो मकान हैं, जिससे रु 2000/- किराया प्राप्त करती है। प्रतिवादी द्वारा कुछ खतौनी के उद्धरण प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं, जिसमें कृषि योग्य भूमि में वादिनी का नाम खसरा सं०- 1737 स्थित ग्राम भदेसुवा परगना निगोहा तहसील मोहनलाल गंज पर वारिस के रूप में अन्य सहखातेदारों के साथ अंकित दिखाया गया है। इस गाटे का क्षेत्रफल 6640 हेक्टेयर है। प्रतिवादी द्वारा वादिनी की कृषि योग्य भूमि का विवरण तो प्रस्तुत किया गया है, किन्तु अपनी कृषि योग्य भूमि का कोई विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। यदि कृषि योग्य भूमि में वांदिनी का कोई हिस्सा है भी तो यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि उसके पास भरण-पोषण के लिए पर्याप्त साधन हैं। जहां तक प्रतिवादी पक्ष द्वारा अपनी लिखित बहस में आय का विवरण दिया गया है, उसकी कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है, अतः यह स्वीकार करना समीचीन नहीं है कि वादिनी के पास अपने भरण-पोषण के लिए पर्याप्त साधन हैं।
उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से स्पष्ट है कि वादिनी जो प्रतिवादी की विवाहिता पत्नी है. युक्तियुक्त कारण से प्रतिवादी से अलग रह रही है और प्रतिवादी उसकी उपेक्षा करके भरण-पोषण नहीं कर रहा है। यादिनी की अपनी स्वयं की कोई आय नहीं है, अतएव यह प्रतिवादी से भरण-पोषण प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी है।
जहां तक, भरण-पोषण की धनराशि का प्रश्न है. यह निर्विवादित है कि प्रतिवादी एच०ए०एल०, कानपुर में टेक्निशियन के पद पर कार्यरत है, जहां उसे रु० 15,000/- मासिक प्राप्त होते हैं, अतएव, वादिनी प्रतिवादी से रु04000/ प्रतिमाह भरण-पोषण की धनराशि प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी है।
आदेश प्रार्थिनी / वादिनी का प्रार्थना पत्र अन्तर्गत धारा-125 द०प्र०सं० स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी / प्रतिवादी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह प्रार्थिनी / वादिनी को प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत करने की तिथि से निर्णय की तिथि तक रू. 1,500/- (एक हजार पाँच सौ रुपये मात्र) प्रतिमाह तथा निर्णय की तिथि से रु0 4000 / - (चार हजार रुपये मात्र) प्रतिमाह भरण-पोषण भत्ता की धनराशि का भुगतान करेगा।"
10. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, it is evident that learned trial Court has considered the statement of the wife Poonam Devi given before this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 on 01.10.2004, where she has stated that she, on her own accord, is residing with her uncle and has refused to go with her husband (Narendra Kumar). Thereafter, a Suit for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights was filed by the husband/Narendra Kumar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Suit No.88 of 2004 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur. Thereafter, the husband Narendra Kumar had filed a suit for divorce in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao. Has also obtained the decree and re-married and out of the wedlock he had 12 months old daughter. The claimant/ Poonam Devi has clarified the statement given by her before the High Court that she doesn't have the guts/courage to go with her husband so she wants to go with her uncle. After scrutinizing the evidence learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion that the claimant/Poonam Devi has been deliberately neglected and was denied the maintenance. Learned trail court has further considered that Habeas Corpus Writ Petition (supra) was filed at High Court, Lucknow by the husband Narendra Kumar. Thereafter in Family Court, Kanpur an application under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act was filed. Subsequent thereto a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed at Unnao thereafter had arrived at a conclusion that the husband somehow wanted to get rid of the claimant and after getting the divorce decree from Unnao he has remarried and had a daughter. However, the husband in his examination-in-chief or by way of any other evidence has not brought these facts on record rather the same has been revealed in his cross examination and therefore has rightly inferred that the husband/ Narendra Kumar has tried to conceal these facts and considering this conduct of the husband/Narendra Kumar the trial court has found the allegations made by the claimant/wife Poonam Devi correct and therefore has rightly arrived at a conclusion that it will not be proper to say that claimant herself is residing away from her husband Narendra Kumar and could not prove the demand of dowry and the mental and physical cruelty which she was subjected and thus has decided the issue no.2 in favour of the claimant.
11. So far as income of the respondent/husband/ Narendra Kumar is concerned issue no.1 was framed. It is not in dispute that Narendra Kumar is employee in HAL Kanpur on the post of Technician and he is getting Rs.15000/- per moth. It has been rightly held that he has enough source of income and still he is not maintaining his wife. The wife though has some ancestral agricultural land but on that basis it has been rightly held that she cannot maintain herself. The husband has not given any details of his agricultural income and he has not adduced any evidence regarding the income of the wife except the objections filed by him and thus trial court has rightly concluded that the claimant/Poonam Devi is the legally wedded wife of the respondents and is residing away from him for justified reasons and the respondents is not maintaining her and she has no source of income and therefore she is entitled to receive maintenance from the husband.
12. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, on the basis of undisputed facts that the respondents is a Technician in HAL Kanpur where he is getting Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore learned trial court has held that the claimant/Poonam Devi is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance amount from the husband/Narendra Kumar, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The same is in conformity with the law however, considering the fact that the maintenance application remained pending since 2004, therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to a cost of Rs.15000/- as the expenses which has been incurred by her during these eight years while contesting this case before the trial court. Learned trial court has awarded Rs.15,00/- per month maintenance from the date of filing of the application and Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of the order to be paid to the claimant by the respondents.
13. So far as awarding the maintenance amount from the date of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it would be apt to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another : 2020 SCC Online SC 903, has held in paragraph-10 that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under :-
"IV Date from which Maintenance to be awarded There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date from which an Order of maintenance may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not provide the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded.
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision which provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of application. [K. Sivaram vs. K. Mangalamba and others: 1989(1) APLJ (HC) 604].
In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent.
(a) From date of application The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependant children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years.
The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v Rabindra Nath Sahu, 1996(I) OLR 361 held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order.
In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena, 2001 Cri L.J. 879, the Orissa High Court was considering an application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was within the discretion of the Court, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v Urmila Jena, (2010) 93 AIC 726 (Ori) wherein it was reiterated that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jain v Dharam Raj Jain, 1993 (2) MPJR 63 held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view that the "normal rule" was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2)Cr.P.C., which the Legislature did not intend. Reasons must be recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of order.
The law governing payment of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v Additional District Judge, Gonda & Ors.51 The Court held that the date of application should always be regarded as the starting point for payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for maintenance u/S. 18 of HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment. The High Court held that the normal inference should be that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the application, which may arise due to paucity of time of the Court, or on account of the conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there was a delay of seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to maintenance from the date of application / suit.
The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v Rukmani, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 851/2019, decided by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 29.11.2019, held that where the wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses towards maintaining herself and the minor child / children, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. It is neither a matter of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the husband.
(b) From the date of order The second view that maintenance ought to be awarded from the date of order is based on the premise that the general rule is to award maintenance from the date of order, and grant of maintenance from the date of application must be the exception. The foundation of this view is based on the interpretation of Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which provides :
"(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be."
The words "or, if so ordered" in Section 125 has been interpreted to mean that where the court is awarding maintenance from the date of application, special reasons ought to be recorded. [Bina Devi & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 69 ACC 19]In Bina Devi v State of U.P., (2010) 69 ACC 19, the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v Sangeeta Verma & Ors. C.R.R. No. 3542/2019 decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated 08.1.2020, directed that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of the order.
(c) From the date of service of summons The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of service of summons upon the respondent.
The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v K.M.K. Nair, AIR 1983 Ker 139, was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High Court held that maintenance must be awarded to the wife from the date on which summons were served in the main divorce petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Samir Banerjee v Sujata Banerjee, 70 CWN 633, and held that Section 24 of the HMA does not contain any provision that maintenance must be awarded from a specific date. The Court may, in exercise of its discretion, award maintenance from the date of service of summons.
The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das v Pradyumna Kumar Das, 1986 (II) OLR 44, was considering an application for interim maintenance filed u/S. 24 HMA by the wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the husband. The Court held that the ordinary rule is to award maintenance from the date of service of summons. It was held that in cases where the applicant in the maintenance petition is also the petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance becomes payable from the date when summons is served upon the respondent in the main proceeding.
In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar Das, AIR 2009 Ori 133, the Orissa High Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the date when the husband entered appearance. The Court was considering an application for interim maintenance u/S. 24 HMA in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the wife and minor child from the date of the order. In an appeal filed by the wife and minor child seeking maintenance from the date of application, the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to assign any reasons in support of its order, and directed :
"9. ?Learned Judge. Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When admittedly the parties are living separately and prima facie it appears that the Petitioners have no independent source of income, therefore, in our view order should have been passed for payment of interim maintenance from the date of appearance of the Opposite Party-husband?"
Discussion and Directions The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded.
Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in S. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.
In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632, this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application.
The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.
In Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held :
"13.3. purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society."
It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant."
14. From the aforesaid dictum, it transpires that controversy in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. It was also held by the Apex Court that the right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. The judgement being retrospective shall apply in this case also. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the learned trial court in favour of the claimant/wife has to be paid by the husband/Narendra Kumar to the claimant/wife from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. w.e.f. 2.8.2004.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 filed by Smt. Poonam Devi is allowed in part. The judgment and order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the husband-Narendra Kumar is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to his wife-Smt. Poonam Devi from the date of application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. w.e.f. 2.8.2004. It is clarified that any amount paid by the husband-Narendra Kumar during pendency of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court shall be adjusted from the amount payable to Smt. Poonam Devi.
16. So far as the enhancement of the maintenance as awarded by the trial Court is concerned, no fresh circumstances have been brought before this Court so as to enhance the maintenance, however, liberty is granted to the claimant/wife to move an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for altercation in allowance of maintenance upon proof of change in circumstances such as enhancement of the salary of her husband Narendra Kumar etc. If such application is made, the same shall be decided, expeditiously, by the trial court concerned.
17. So far as plea raised in Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 by the husband Narendra Kumar that statement made by the claimant before this Court in the Habeas Corpus writ petition has not been considered by the learned trial court is concerned, the same is not correct as the learned trial court has not only considered the statement of the claimant in the Habeas Corpus writ petition made before this Court but has also considered the statement of the claimant/witness/wife, who has stated that the statement was given as she could not dare to go with her husband and therefore she wanted to go with her uncle.
18. In Habeas corpus writ petition only this much is to be seen whether the detenue has been illegally detained or not. The only interpretation to the statement given by the wife/Poonam Devi before this Court in Habeas Corpus petition can be made that she has not been illegally detained. The learned trial court while considering this statement has simultaneously also considered the conduct of the husband by which he has filed case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kanpur Family Court and another case under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband at Unnao court and has obtained the decree of divorce and has remarried after the decree of divorce and has a girl of 12 months old. All these facts show that learned trial court has rightly held that husband Narendra Kumar wanted to get rid of the claimant/wife and all these facts have not been stated by him in his examination-in-chief or by means of any other evidence rather the same have come before this Court in his cross examination and therefore has rightly held that the husband has tried to conceal these facts from this court and then considering the conduct of the husband, the trial court has rightly held that the claimant is residing away from the husband for justified reasons and she has been neglected by not paying maintenance and husband had to maintain to her and she is a destitute and has no source of income and therefore she is entitled to get the maintenance from the husband.
19. In view of the forgoing discussion, the Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 filed by the husband/Narendra Kumar is dismissed.
Order Date:26.5.2022 Madhu