1 revn23.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.23/2011
Mr. Ashish s/o Manohar Ambolikar,
aged 42 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Near Sadavarti Temple,
Jogithana Peth, Umrer, Tq. Umrer,
Dist. Nagpur-441 203 …..APPLICANT
…V E R S U S…
1. Mrs. Meenakshi w/o Ashish Ambolikar,
aged 34 years, Occ. Housewife.
2. Nishesh s/o Ashish Ambolikar,
aged 6 years, being minor through
his legal guardian mother i.e.
applicant no.1. …NON APPLICANTS
——————————————————————————————-
Mrs. Vaishali Khadekar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Qureshi, Advocated for non applicant.
——————————————————————————————-
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 20.02.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Mrs. Khadekar, learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the applicant/husband is not disputing the quantum of
maintenance. She submits that the applicant is disputing only
starting point of making payment of the interim maintenance.
::: Uploaded on – 21/02/2018 24/02/2018 01:40:36 :::
2 revn23.18.odt
3. As per the impugned order dated 05.10.2016 passed
below Exh.6 in Petition E-302/2015, the learned Judge of the Family
Court No.3, Nagpur directed that the applicant shall pay an amount
of Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant no.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per
month to non applicant no.2-son by way of interim maintenance
from the date of the application i.e. from 12.06.2015.
4. The application under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is filed by the non applicants. It was registered
as Petition E-302/2015. During the pendency of the said petition, an
application Exh.-6 for grant of interim maintenance was filed.
5. Since, the applicant is not challenging the quantum of
interim maintenance granted in favour of the non applicant nos. 1
and 2 and the main proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is pending, this Court is not making any
observations in respect of the merits or demerits of the petition filed
by the non applicant.
6. According to the learned counsel for the applicant herein,
the Court below has committed mistake in granting maintenance
::: Uploaded on – 21/02/2018 24/02/2018 01:40:36 :::
3 revn23.18.odt
from the date of application i.e. from 12.06.2015. The learned
counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the judgment of this
Court in Criminal Application N.150/2017 dated 31.01.2018, in
absence of any reasons, the Court below ought not to have granted
maintenance from the date of the application.
7. Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for the non applicants,
would submit that the order passed by the Court below is justified.
He submits that in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, reasons
are given by the learned Judge of the Family Court.
8. Insofar as the final order is concerned, the last word of
the Hon’ble Apex Court is in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas anr .Vs.
Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas anr; reported in 2015 ALL MR
(Cri) 376 (SC). As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
it was open for the Court granting maintenance to grant the same
either from the date of the application or from the date of the order.
However, for that the Court may record specific reason as to why the
Court is granting maintenance from the date of the order or from the
date of the application, as the case may be.
::: Uploaded on – 21/02/2018 24/02/2018 01:40:36 :::
4 revn23.18.odt
9. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Shashank
Mohanlal Rangari .Vs. Sau. Pallavi Shashank Rangari; vide
judgment dated 31.01.2018, in paragraph 6, has observed as under:
“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 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.”
I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge in that behalf.
10. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the
non applicants tried to point out that the reasons are given by the
learned Judge of the Court below in paragraph 12, I am afraid that
those could be the reasons for granting maintenance from the date of
the application. Those reasons are for reaching to the conclusion
that the non applicants herein are entitled for interim maintenance.
::: Uploaded on – 21/02/2018 24/02/2018 01:40:36 :::
5 revn23.18.odt
Since the learned counsel for the applicant submits she has not
challenged the quantum, in my view, those reasonings are not of any
support to the submission of the learned counsel for the non
applicant. The order impugned is totally silent as to why the learned
Judge is granting maintenance from the date of the application.
11. It is also reported to this Court that the applicant is not in
arrears of maintenance from the date of the order of the
maintenance. He is regularly paying Rs.15,000/- per month by way
of interim maintenance to the non applicants.
12. In that view of the matter, in absence of reasons as to
why the maintenance should be granted from the date of the
application, in my view, the order to that extent cannot stand to the
scrutiny of law. Consequently, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application No.23/2018 is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 05.10.2016 below Exh.6, passed by Judge,
Family Court No.3, Nagpur in Petition E-302/2015 is quashed and
set aside to the extent it grants maintenance from the date of the
application.
::: Uploaded on – 21/02/2018 24/02/2018 01:40:36 :::
6 revn23.18.odt
(iii) The applicant herein shall pay maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- regularly to the non applicants from the date of order
i.e. from 05.10.2016 and shall not commit any default.
(iv) Insofar as order granting Rs.7,000/- towards litigation
expenses is concerned, the said order is affirmed by this Court.
(v) The present applicant is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the
non applicants towards costs of the present application.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE
kahale
::: Uploaded on – 21/02/2018 24/02/2018 01:40:36 :::
