SATISH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. ANEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for applicant. Applicant Satish Chandra Gupta has filed this revision against the order dated 20th January 1994 passed by Shri R.K. Ratoori. Judge Family Court Meerut granting maintenance to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Children) at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to each of them from the date of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. I have heard the learned Counsel for applicant at length. The learned Counsel for applicant has relied on the case of Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chandra Prabha Devi, 1990(27) ACC 511. In the above case it has been held by S.R. Bhargava, J. that a bare reading of Section 125(2) Cr. P.C. goes to show that such allowance shall be payable from the date of order, if so ordered, from the date of application of maintenance. Bhargava, J. further observed that the ordinary rule is that maintenance to wife is payable from the date of order and exception to this ordinary rule is an order making maintenance payable from the date of application and if recourse to the exception is taken the order must be supported by reasons. Speaking for myself I am unable to subscribe to the above interpretation of Section 118(2), Cr. P.C. put by S.R. Bhargava, J, and I respectfully disagree with the same. When the Section 125(2), Cr. P.C. clearly speaks of two options i.e. maintenance shall be payable from the date of order and if so directed from the date of application, both the options are open to the Court. The legislature, has left it to the discretion of the Magistrate to choose any one of the alternatives considering the facts of each case. However, it is not necessary to refer the case of Dharmendra Kumar Gupta for reconsideration by a larger bench for the simple reason that a revisional Court can always look for reasons itself and in suitable cases modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The facts of the present case which emerge from the application filed by Smt. Aneeta under Section 125, Cr. P.C. are that Smt. Aneeta was married to applicant Satish Chandra Gupta in the year 1984 and respondent No. 2 Master Ashish Gupta and respondent No. 3, Kumari Dolly were born out of the wed-lock. On 16.11.1986 Smt. Aneeta respondent No. 1 was severely beaten and turned out from the conjugal home alongwith her two minor children. She got herself medically examined at the District Hospital, Meerut. Thereafter she again went to the house of applicant in 1987 after a compromise had arrived at between the husband and wife and lived there for about 5 months. During this period of 5 months she had another conception. On 17.6.87 even though Smt. Aneeta was pregnant she was turned out from the marital home and had to take refuge at the place of her parents alongwith her two children Smt. Aneeta delivered a female child on 26.10.1987. Since applicant did not care to maintain Smt. Aneeta on 29th November, 1989 Smt. Aneeta pave an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. which has been allowed by the learned Judge Family Court, Meerut.

(3.) It would thus appear that the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. lingered on to nearly 5 years and Smt. Aneeta Gupta was not only feeding the mouths of her children in these hard days but also spent money for prosecuting her application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and it was only after a lapse of so many years when the order granting maintenance was passed. In my opinion, the delay in disposal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is by itself a sufficient ground to grant maintenance to the wife from the date of application, The wife cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in disposal of application for maintenance in the instant case the wife and the children had been suffering great hardship since 1987 and maintenance has rightly been awarded from the date of application i.e. 29th November, 1989.