1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sikari, District Dausa wherein the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2, Vimla Devi, from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 23.08.2006 after deducting the amount which she may be receiving as maintenance under an order passed by any other court.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Vimla Devi, filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Magistrate claiming maintenance against the petitioner. She claimed that she was married with the petitioner about ten years ago according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was performed at village Bhojpura. After the marriage, when her brother came to her in-laws' house to take her, the petitioner and his family members misbehaved with her and her brother for not giving a motorcycle, a color T.V. & a fridge in dowry. After she came back to her parental house, the petitioner and his family members never came back to take her, but regularly demanded dowry. On their demand, her father gave Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner for dowry and to take her back to the matrimonial home. After a few days, again the petitioner and his family members started cruelty with her. Eventually, they threw her out of the matrimonial home. She is living with her parents According to her, the petitioner is having plenty of income as he is having agriculture land, shops, tractor and also he is working in Jaipur-Mahwa Tollway Pvt. Ltd. as Toll Collector and he receives Rs. 5,000/- gross salary, and Rs. 4,715/- net salary. On the other hand, she is not having any source of income. Therefore, the petitioner is morally and legally bound to provide maintenance to her. Hence, she prayed for maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

3. On the application, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply. In the reply, he stated that at the time of marriage, he was minor and the respondent never come to his house after she became an adult. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of both the parties. In order to buttress her case, the respondent No.2 examined herself as witness. In turn, the petitioner examined himself and two other persons as witnesses After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 17.10.2008, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to Smt. Vimla Devi, as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Mr. M.K. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned ADJ had directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,200/- per month. However, notwithstanding the said order, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month. Thus, the learned Magistrate has violated judicial propriety in going beyond the order passed by a superior court namely, the Court of Additional District Judge. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. Secondly, while granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application, the learned Magistrate is required to state "special reasons" as contemplated under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code However, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has failed to give any "special reasons" for granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Hence, the learned Magistrate has failed to observe the requirement of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shantilal Vs. Smt. Sushila [2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 285] and the case of Mahendra Kumar Vs. Rajesh Rathore & Ors. [2007 (1) RCC 155] .

5. On