SHAMIMA Vs. RAHIM DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the reference -dated 8.9.2003 made by learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla meticulously.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla has recommended the modification of the order dated 22.2.2003 passed by the trial court directing respondent to pay maintenance, at the rate awarded, from the date of order to from the date of application. It is also stated that the trail Magistrate has passed the order in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, as is gatherable from his order refusing maintenance to the petitioner from the date of application without assigning any reasons.

(3.) WHILE dealing with the ambit and scope of the provisions contained in Section 488 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 488 are intended to achieve this special purpose. Having regard to this special object, the provisions of Section 488 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfill and achieve this intention of the legislature. Clause 2 of Section 488 gives discretion to the Magistrate to pass an order of maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application for maintenance. Date of application for maintenance means date of application to the court which passes the order. The court has discretion in giving maintenance from the date of application. In case the discretion is exercised otherwise and the maintenance is allowed from the date of order passed by the Court to which the application has been made, it must be supported by reasons. This is said so in order to achieve the predominant purpose beyond the provisions contained in Section 488. The recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge, manifestly appears to be on sound basis and when weighed on the touch stone of the provision of Section 488 are borne out to be justified. Consequently, I allow the reference and modify the order dated 22.2.2003 directing the respondent to pay the maintenance awarded by the trial Magistrate from the date of the application before the court which passed the order instead of from the date of order. The reference is, answered, accordingly.