MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Maintenance u/s 125, Cr.P.C Reduced

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JAIPUR)
Decided on October 01,2007

Paramveer Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Suresh Kanwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ORDER
G.S. Sarraf, J.

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3.8.2007 passed by Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in regular case No. 199/2002 whereby the application of the respondent filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to pay the respondent maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.6.2002.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 125, Cr.P.C. maintenance allowance should be awarded from the date of order and not from the date of application without assigning any reason and in this case as the Family Court has not assigned any reason, therefore, the maintenance allowance should be made payable from the date of order. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court Qamruddin v. Smt. Rashida II(1992) DMC 328 : 1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) 305. He further contends that the maintenance awarded to the respondent is excessive because, according to him, it should not exceed one-fifth of the income of the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Court has discretion to allow maintenance from the date of application and it is not necessary for the Court to give reasons. He relies on Smt. Savita Sharma v. Shri Krishan Murari 1990 (1) RLR 400. He further submits that looking to the income of the petitioner the monthly maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is not excessive.

5. A bare reading of Section 125, Cr.P.C. shows that under Section 125(2), Cr.P.C. allowance shall be payable from the date of order or if so ordered from the date of application of the maintenance.

6. I have perused the judgment reported in 1990 (1) RLR 400 but it has not been held therein that the maintenance allowance can be awarded from the date of application without assigning any reason. On the other hand in 1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) 305 it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that if the Trial Court feels that the amount of maintenance should be ordered from the date of application then there should be some reasons for ordering so. Following the view taken by the Division Bench, I am of the opinion that if the Trial Court awards maintenance allowance from the date of application then it must assign some reasons for ordering so. In this case, the Family Court has not assigned any reason for awarding maintenance from the date of application and, therefore, the maintenance allowance should be made payable from the date of order and not from the date of application.

7. According to the salary slip of the petitioner of the month of April, 2006, the total salary of the petitioner is Rs. 16,898. The respondent in her statement recorded in the Family Court has stated that the entire income of the petitioner is Rs. 20,000 per month including the income from rent. If we accept the statement of the respondent herself then the income of the petitioner is around Rs. 20,000 per month. In the case reported in 1990 (1) RLR 400 cited by the Counsel for the respondent it has been held that usually the maintenance allowance should be limited to one-fifth of the income of the husband. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that Rs. 4000 per month should be the proper and appropriate maintenance allowance.

8. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is partly allowed. The maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000 per month is reduced to Rs. 4,000 per month and it shall be payable not from the date of application but from the date of judgment i.e. 3.8.2007.

9. The revision petition stands disposed of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 MyNation KnowledgeBase
eXTReMe Tracker
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh