MADAN LAL Vs. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail order dated 6th of September, 2017, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pali (for short, 'learned Court below'). The learned Court below, by the order impugned, partly allowed application of the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and granted each of them maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000 per mensem, cumulatively Rs. 6,000. While granting maintenance, the learned Court below has also ordered that the same would be payable to them from the date of application, i.e. 24th of February, 2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has not questioned the quantum of maintenance determined by the learned Court below but contended that the learned Court below has not recorded reasons for reckoning the grant of maintenance from the date of application. It is submitted by learned counsel that sub-sec.(2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. though envisages allowing maintenance allowance or interim maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application but the Court is required to record reasons for ordering payment of maintenance from the date of application. He has, therefore, urged that in absence of reasons being recorded by the learned Court below the order allowing maintenance payable from the date of application is per se laconic and not sustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Jaimniben Hirenbhai Vyas & Another. Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Another., (2015) 2 SCC 385.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the learned Court below in exercise of its discretion has granted maintenance allowance to the respondents from the date of application, which calls for no interference. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui Vs. Sahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705.