THULASI ALIAS THULJA BAI Vs. LAXMAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is preferred assailing the order of Court of Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in reversing the order of the Court of Magistrate. Proceedings arose under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for maintenance instituted by the wife who is the petitioner herein. Ist respondent is her husband. The petitioner had instituted M.C. No. 34 of 1989 on the file of JFCM, Mahaboobnagar claiming maintenance @ Rs. 500.00 per month. The same was contested by the Ist respondent on the ground that he did not neglect to maintain her and that the quantum claimed by her was exorbitant, and that he was not having that much income to pay Rs. 500.00 per month towards maintenance. Enquiry was held and the Court of Magistrate repelled the said contentions and directed the payment of maintenance from the date of application.

(2.) The 1st respondent had preferred revision to the Court of Session, Mahaboobnagar. The said Court while upholding the order of maintenance reversed the effective date holding that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order passed by the Magistrate, as the Magistrate had failed to record reasons for ordering maintenance from the date of the application. The Sessions Judge relied upon the judgement rendered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jam v. Dharam Raj Jain, 1992 Cri LJ 1028 (MP). The Madhya Pradesh High Court took a view that under Section 125(2), Cr. P.C. reasons have got to be recorded by the Court in either case, namely, when the maintenance is granted from the date of the application or from the date of the order. But, in K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba, 1989(2) ALT 669 : (1990 Cri LJ 1880), my learned brother Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao took a contrary view to the effect that while ordering the maintenance from the date of the application, the Court of Magistrate is not obliged to state any reasons. Same was the view of Kerala High Court in C. M. Manni v. Esther Pachikara, 1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 76 (Ker). Section 125(1), Cr. P.C. enables a wife or a child or a parent neglected to seek for maintenance. After enquiry, if the Magistrate finds that the neglect is proved, having regard to the source of income of the husband, the Court of Magistrate shall fix the quantum of maintenance. Under Section 125(2), Cr. P.C. discretion is vested in the Magistrate to set the effective date of the said payment either from the date of the application or from the date of the order. It is apart to extract Section 125(2), Cr. P.C."Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance."The said provision does not obligate the Magistrate to record reasons to set the date, be it date of application or the date of the order. The obligation is, however, inherent to record reasons for granting maintenance. But, there is no obligation to record reasons for setting the date. The right for maintenance provided under Section 125, Cr. P.C. is expeditious remedy to avoid vagrancy. It is a beneficial provision to wives, children and parents who cannot maintain themselves and who are neglected. All the beneficial provisions have got to be liberally construed so as to further the said object. That apart, when the statute is silent regarding stating of reasons, it cannot be read into the same to place obligation on the part of the Court granting maintenance to record reasons to set the date, either date of application or the date of the order. The Court is obliged to state reasons to set the date only when the provision makes it obligatory, that too, expressly and it cannot be implied at all. A plain reading of Section 125(2), Cr. P.C. only means that, if the Magistrate does not set the date for payment, then ordinarily, it is the date of the order and to make it effective from the date of application the Magistrate should specifically say so in the order. Nothing more or nothing less can be read into the said provision contained under sub-Section (2) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. In the instant case, the Magistrate has specifically set the date as from the date of filing of the petition and that is so obvious from the concluding paragraph No. 14 of the order of the Magistrate :"In the result, the petition is allowed directing the respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rupees 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of this petition. No costs."As such, it is obvious that the Magistrate set the date for payment of maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance and that is a sufficient compliance of the provisions contained under Section 125 (2), Cr. P.C. and he was not obliged to state reasons for setting the effective date of payment from the date of the application. The Court of Session erred in reversing the order of the Magistrate.

(3.) In the circumstances, the order of the Court of Sessions is set aside restoring the order of JFCM, Mahaboobnagar in M. C. No. 34/89, Crl. R. C. is allowed.Revision allowed.