- (1.) THE instant Misc. Petition No.2793/2011 has been preferred by petitioner Govind Ram, who is father of respondent Ankit, challenging the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur in Criminal Revision No.21/2010 whereby he partly allowed the revision filed by Govind Ram against the order dated 6.4.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sumerpur in Criminal Case No.104/2004. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 20.3.2004. The learned revisional court modified the said order and directed that the maintenance would be payable to Ankit from the date of order i.e. 6.4.2010 and not from the date of the application.
(2.) REVISION Petition No.408/2011 has been filed by Ankit against the aforesaid order dated 6.4.2011 whereby maintenance granted to him has been modified to be payable from the date of order and not from the date of application. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Govind Ram was married to Smt. Geeta on 9.5.1997 and out of this wedlock, the son Ankit was born. Govind Ram is working on the post of Group Secretary in the Panchayat Samiti. Govind Ram started neglecting to maintain his wife Geeta on which Geeta filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 24.5.2001 wherein she claimed that she was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb from Govind Ram who harassed her on count of bringing less dowry and turned her out of the house without any justification and was not maintaining her and, therefore, she prayed for being granted maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month. Subsequently, upon birth of the child Ankit, another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved on his behalf on 20.3.2004 through his natural guardian Geeta and in the said application, prayer was made that Ankit being a minor child required Rs.3,000/- per month for his maintenance, education, medical expenses etc. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 6.4.2010 accepted the application filed by Ankit holding that Govind Ram was drawing salary of nearly Rs.15,000/- per month and thus, Ankit was entitled for maintenance amount at a rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. Against the said order, Govind Ram filed a revision and the learned revisional court partly allowed the revision by its order dated 6.4.2011 and directed modification of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 6.4.2010 by curtailing the order dated 6.4.2010 to be effective from the date of order i.e. 6.4.2010 instead of from the date of application i.e. 20.3.2004. Learned counsel Mr.Rakesh Arora, appearing on behalf of Govind Ram, submits that the very grant of maintenance to Ankit is absolutely unjustified. He submits that Govind Ram was a temporary Gram Sewak drawing a meagre salary and that since Geeta left Govind Ram of her own freewill and a mutual divorce was also executed between the parties, neither Geeta nor Ankit was entitled to maintenance. He further submits that the direction whereby the learned revisional court has curtailed the order of maintenance to Ankit as being effective from the date of passing of the order is absolutely justified and does not call for any interference. He submits that the learned Magistrate did not record any special reasons for directing that the order of maintenance to be effective from the date of filing of the application. Therefore, the revisional court was fully justified in curtailing the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Pradeep Shah, appearing on behalf of Ankit, submits that the application on behalf of Ankit was moved way back in the year 2004. The delay in disposal of the application was not because of any of the conduct of Ankit. He submits that no special reasons are required to be recorded by the learned Magistrate for directing that the order of maintenance should be effective from the date of filing of the application. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shailkumari Devi. Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in AIR 2008 SC 3006, learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in no unequivocal terms has held that no special reasons are required to be mentioned by the learned Magistrate whilst accepting the application for maintenance from the date of filing thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :- "While deciding an application under Section 125 a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. No such requirement can be read in sub- section (1) of Section 125 in absence of express provision to that effect. Maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of 'special reasons' though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him."
(3.) HE submits that the learned Magistrate for justifiable causes accepted the application from the date of filing thereof and the learned revisional court has wrongly and unjustly interfered in the said order and that too simply on the ground that no special reasons wee mentioned for accepting the application from the date of filing. He, therefore, urged that the order passed by the learned revisional court be quashed and that of the learned Magistrate be restored. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned, applying the settled position of law to the case, it is apparent that no special reasons are required to be mentioned for accepting the application for maintenance from the date of filing thereof as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above. Therefore, the learned revisional court was not at all justified in modifying the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner Govind Ram to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to his son Ankit from the date of filing of the application. However, looking to the fact that now nearly eight years have passed since the application for maintenance was filed, if it is now directed that Govind Ram should pay the whole of arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to Ankit from the date of filing of the application, it will encumber him with huge liability of nearly Rs.3,00,000/- at once. The pleadings available on the record reveal that the petitioner Govind Ram claims a mutual customary divorce from Geeta and thereafter, he is said to have married again and is having children from his subsequent marriage also. Therefore, This Court is of the opinion that though Ankit would be entitled to receive the maintenance from the date of filing of the application but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance which the petitioner Govind Ram is required to pay from the date of filing of the application till the date of order i.e. 6.4.2010 deserves to be suitably modified. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2793/2011 filed by Govind Ram and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.408/2011 filed by Ankit are disposed of and the order passed by the revisional court dated 6.4.2011 is hereby quashed and it is now directed that the petitioner Govind Ram shall make a payment of Rs.1,000/- per month to Ankit from the date of filing of application i.e. 20.3.2004 till the date of order i.e. 6.4.2010 and thereafter, Govind Ram shall continue to pay the maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate i.e. @ Rs.3,000/- per month from 6.4.2010 onwards. Govind Ram shall deposit the arrears of maintenance in six equal bimonthly installments starting from 19.9.2012. ;