Bombay High Court
Shri. Shashank S/O. Mohanlal Rangari vs Sau. Pallavi W/O. Shashank Rangari on 31 January, 2018
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 150 of 2017
Petitioner : Shashank Mohanlal Rangari, aged about 35
years, Occ: service, presently residing at Type-
III, GSI Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur,
permanent resident of 455, New Babhulkheda,
Near Maitri Boudha Vihar, Post Bhagwan Nagar,
P. S. Ajni, Nagpur
Versus
Respondent: Sau Pallavi w/o Shashank Rangari, aged about
27 years, Occ: service, resident of c/o Sunil P. Rahulkar, Gali No. 3, Kunjilalpeth, Nagpur Shri A. G. Bambal, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri R. M. Daruwala, Advocate for respondent Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 31st January 2018 Oral Judgment
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.
2. The first challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2018 01:37:49 ::: 2 dated 8th December 2016 granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month passed by the Family Court-II, Nagpur is that those deductions apart from the statutory deductions were not considered by the Family Court though they ought to have been considered. This is not agreed to by learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The law is well settled on the point of which deductions from the salary ought to be considered and which ought to be excluded while deciding the quantum of maintenance allowance payable by one party to the other. The law requires that only statutory deductions be considered ignoring all other deductions from the salary. As of now , the impugned order discloses that this law has been followed by the learned Judge of Family Court. The first challenge is, therefore, rejected.
4. The second challenge to the impugned order is about granting of interim maintenance from the date of application i.e. 14.8.2015 without recording any reasons as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and anr v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and anr reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 376 (SC). Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the ratio of the above judgment is applicable only to final order and not to the impugned order, which is an interim order.
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2018 01:37:49 ::: 3
5. In the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and anr v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and anr (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 354 (6) Cr. P. C. prescribes that every court passing a final order under Section 125 or Section 117 of Cr. P. C. and orders under sections mentioned therein, must state the reasons in support of the order passed by it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that since application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. grants discretionary power to the Court to direct payment of maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application for maintenance, it would be necessary for the Court to record reasons when it directs payment of maintenance in both cases, either from the date of application or from the date of order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sub-section (2) of section 125 Cr. P. C. must be construed with sub-section (6) of Section 354 Cr. P. C.
6. Although Section 354 (6) Cr. P. C. requires reasons to be recorded while passing the final order under Section 125 Cr. P. C., the provision cannot be ignored even when it comes to passing of an interim order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for the reason that even such an order must necessarily be passed upon sound reasons and those reasons should be capable of explaining the purpose of passing the order effective from a particular date i.e. the date of the order or the date of the ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2018 01:37:49 ::: 4 interim maintenance application. What is applied to a final order would also have to be applied to an interim order where law requires that interim order must always be steeped in reason.
7. Needless to say, it is settled law that even an interim order passed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. must show the reason or the logic behind the order. Therefore, I am of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would also have its application to the interim order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr. P. C.
8. In the present case, no reasons are recorded by the learned Judge of Family Court in making effective the impugned order from the date of interim maintenance application, which is not consistent with the legal position which is just explained. Therefore, to this extent, modification of the impugned order would be necessary. In my considered view, the modification of the impugned order must be made here only, as remanding of the application to the Family Court for this reason only may not be appropriate for it will involve delay and prospect of pushing the respondent to the stage of vagrancy and she would be left with no maintenance amount coming her way.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified by directing ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2018 01:37:49 ::: 5 that the interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent with effect from 8.12.2016, the date of order, till final disposal of the petition. However, it is made clear that the question of granting final maintenance, if any, from the date of petition i.e. 14.8.2016 is kept open to be adjudicated on merits and the Family Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made on facts by this Court.
10. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2018 01:37:49 :::