CRL RC/493/2002 of MR.K.RAJAMANICKAM Vs MRS.THAMIZHARASI on 5 December 2002

:O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Vellore, dated 18.10.2002 made in Crl.R.P.18 of 1997 granting maintenance atthe rate of Rs.275/- per month in favour of the first respondent herein andRs.300/- per month, in favour of the second respondent herein, thepetitioner/husband preferred the above revision.

2. It is the case of the first respondent herein that on 6.6.1971,she married the petitioner herein and they were having one son and twodaughters. It is her case that they were having happy married life for aperiod of twelve years and thereafter, her husband ill-treated her. Shefurther stated that the petitioner/husband sought for her consent for thesecond marriage which she refused. Further, on 11.3.1 983, he married oneKrishnaveni and on her advice, he drove the first respondent herein when shewas pregnant. She came to her parents' house and her efforts to join with herhusband did not yield any fruitful results and therefore, she issued a legalnotice on 6.6.1990 claiming maintenance. Since her demand was not compliedwith, she filed M.C.No.11 of 1992 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I,Tirupathur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance for herself andher minor daughter. The said petition was resisted by the husband/ petitionerherein by filing counter-statement. After denying all the averments made in the maintenance petition, he stated that after selling his property, he gaveRs.61,275/-. He has also stated that he filed O.P.42 of 1992 before theSub-Court, Tirupathur for divorce and the same is pending. She has means tomaintain herself; hence they are not entitled to maintenance. Before thelearned Magistrate, the wife was examined as P.W.1 and marked legal notice asEx.P.1. On the side of the respondent therein, husband was examined as R.W.1and one Pachaiammal was examined as R.W.2. Lawyer notice was also marked asEx.R.1. The learned Magistrate accepted the case of the husband andultimately dismissed the maintenance petition. Aggrieved by the same, thewife and the daughter preferred Crl.R.P.18 of 1997 before the AdditionalSessions Judge, Vellore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge afterconsidering the claim of both parties, accepted the case of the revisionpetitioners and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.275/- and Rs.300 /- permonth respectively, in favour of the respondents-1 and 2 herein. Questioningthe said order, the husband has preferred the above revision.3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner fairlystates that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved only with regard to thedirection of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, namely, directing him topay the maintenance as ordered from the date of petition. By pointing outSub-Section-2 of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner would contend that the normal rule as per the provision is that,maintenance shall be granted from the date of order and only in exceptionalcases, direction shall be issued from the date of application for maintenance.In the light of the said contention, I have carefully perused the languagewhich reads as under:

" Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, ifso ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. "

From a reading of the above provision, it cannot be contended that in allcases, maintenance shall be granted from the date of order. If that is so,there is no need for the legislature to incorporate the specific sentence, "ifso ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance." I am of theview that depending on the facts of each case, more particularly the grievanceof the respondents, the Court can grant appropriate relief. In the presentcase, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the stand taken bythe husband and the claim of the petitioners that they are unable to maintainthemselves. It is also seen from the evidence that the revision petitioner isemployed in Railways and getting a reasonable income. The husband whoexamined himself as R.W.1 has deposed that he was getting Rs.1,200/- permonth. In the absence of production of salary certificate from his employerand in view of the statement of P.W.1 that he is earning Rs.2,500/- being anemployee of the Railways which is a Central Government Organisation, thelearned Sessions Judge has concluded that he was earning more than Rs.3,00 0/-per month. On the other hand, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that shewas a beedi roller and she got Rs.35/- in a week and the job is of casualnature.

4. It is relevant to refer a decision of this Court reported inGnanaselvi and 2 others v. Illavarasan (1998-2-L.W.(Crl.) 614, wherein theHon'ble Justice Karpagavinayagam has considered the very same subsection-2 andobserved that, "the normal rule is to grant maintenance from the date of applicationand not from the date of order."

The learned Judge further observed that," It is only where there are exceptional cases for valid reasons, itis open to the Magistrate to grant maintenance from the date of the order. "I am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Judge.5. Taking note of all the above details and in the light of thelanguage used in Sub-Section-2 of Section 125 Cr.P.C., I am unable toappreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I amin agreement with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Therefore, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently,Crl.M.P.2364 of 2002 is closed.

Index: YesWeb Site: Yes vsTo:1) The Judicial Magistrate No.1,Tirupathur.2) The Additional Sessions JudgeVellore.