CRR/260/2024 of LOKENDRA YADAV Vs ASHA on 2 February 2024

ORDER

This is Criminal Revision u/S.19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 readwith Sec.397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2023passed by Family court, Dhar in Case No.MJCR 251/2023 whereby theapplication filed u/S.127 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.

2. The respondents have filed an application u/S.125 of Cr.P.C formaintenance against the applicant. The Court, after evaluation of evidence ofboth the parties directed the applicant to pay Rs.2000/- each to the respondentNo.2 and 3 minor children from the date of application i.e. from 17.8.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed Cr.Revision No.3845/2023before this Court. In the said revision, the applicant confined challenge to thesaid order only in respect of award of maintenance from the date of applicationand did not challenge the award of maintenance. Considering the aforesaidsubmissions and limited prayer of the applicant, the court disposed off the saidrevision petition with a direction to consider afresh the request of applicant afterhearing both the parties if he files an application before the court in this regard. Thereafter the court has passed the fresh impugned order dated 22.12.2023 andrejected the prayer of the applicant to award the maintenance from the date oforder instead of from the date of application.

3. Counsel for applicant submits that the respondents were not entitledfor maintenance because the delay was on the part of the respondents and,therefore, court ought to have awarded the maintenance from the date of orderand not from the date of application. He placed reliance on the judgmentpassed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC

324.

4. After hearing learned counsel for applicant and upon perusal of thejudgment passed by the Apex Court, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. In the case of Rajnesh (supra) it has been held that the maintenanceu/S.125 Cr.P.C be granted from the date of application. The relevantparagraphs of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-

"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views ofdifferent High Courts on the date from which maintenancemust be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion isconferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from thedate of application or from the date of the order in Section125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenancefrom the date of application in all cases, including Section 125CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating tomaintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposalof the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. Itwould therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play thatmaintenance is awarded from the date of the application.

110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan BhagwanPathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak,(2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Courtheld that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left tothe uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delayin disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenancefrom the date of application. In Bhuwan MohanSingh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri)200] , this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought bythe husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in theadjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was notonly against human rights, but also against the basicembodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in theconduct of the proceedings would require grant ofmaintenance to date back to the date of application.111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date ofapplication finds its roots in the object of enactingmaintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcomethe financial crunch which occurs on separation from thehusband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hampertheir capacity to be effectively represented before the court. Inorder to prevent a dependant from being reduced todestitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filedbefore the court concerned."

5. I further do not find any merit in the contention of the applicant thatsince the respondents were prosecuting the remedies before this court and,therefore, the delay was caused on her part and, therefore, the maintenancecould not have been awarded from the date of application. Prosecuting thestatutory remedies by the respondents would not constitute delay in the trial. The proceedings were proceeded ex-parte against the respondents and becauseshe did not appear on the various dates. He produced copy of the order dated14.7.2023 passed in Cr.Revision No.1276/2021. Upon perusal of the saidorder, it appears that the trial court proceeded against the respondents on ex-parte and an application u/O.9 Rule 9 read with Sec.151 of CPC wasdismissed. The respondents filed fresh Revision No.1276/2021 and this courtallowed the said petitioner and the order impugned was set aside. The matterwas remitted back to the Family Court.

6. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra), Ido not find any case for interference. The revision is dismissed.

VM

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE