Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Vimlendra Pal Singh S/o Shri Satrughan Singh Bhadoriya - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2014
Decided On : 11-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Sahni, Mr. Kapil Gupta, Mr. R.M. Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Biri Singh, Mr. Mukesh Saini
For the State : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat
The court has the power to award maintenance from the date of the application or from the date of the order, considering the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CR.P.C. - SECTION 125(2) CR.P.C. - The court has the power to award maintenance from the date of the application or from the date of the order. In the instant case, the court awarded maintenance from the date of the application, considering that the wife had no source of income and remained dependent on her father for maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner husband challenged the order of the Family Court awarding maintenance to his wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that the amount of maintenance awarded was excessive and should have been awarded from the date of the order, not from the date of the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had sufficient source and was under obligation to maintain his wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court also found that the wife had no source of income and remained dependent on her father for maintenance.
Issues: 1. Whether the amount of maintenance awarded was excessive? 2. Whether the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of the order or from the date of the application?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amount of maintenance awarded was not excessive considering the petitioner's income and the wife's lack of income. 2. The court held that the maintenance could be awarded from the date of the application, considering that the wife had no source of income and remained dependent on her father for maintenance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision-petition and upheld the order of the Family Court.
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
With consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner has preferred this revision-petition aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2013 passed by Family Court, Bharatpur, whereby, the Court below has awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 2 and Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 3 from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 2 in the year 1995. They have been living separately since 2007. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife and minor son on 05.11.2008 claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month for wife and Rs. 10,000/- per month for minor son. It was pleaded in the application that petitioner husband is earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per month. He is an official translator and in addition to his official duties he is doing acting in serials and advertisement and is also doing private translation.
4. The Court below after recording the evidence of parties has allowed the application and awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month to non-petitioner No. 2 and Rs. 7,000/- per month to non-petitioner No. 3 till he attains majority. Aggrieved by which petitioner husband has preferred this revision-petition.
5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per the Salary Slip of the petitioner in the year 2008, petitioner was earning Rs. 23,500/- per month. The award of maintenance from year 2008 @ Rs. 17,000/- per month is thus excessive. It is also contended that non-petitioner No. 2 wife is a qualified lady. Her educational qualifications includes M.A, B.Ed, Ph.D and she is capable of earning her own livelihood, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
6. It is also contended that the award of maintenance from the date of application is bad in law and the amount should have been awarded from the date of order, in support of the said argument counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr. v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2435 of 2014 decided by Supreme Court of India on 19.11.2014.
7. It is also contended that the carry home salary has to be considered for deciding the quantum of maintenance. Reliance in this respect has been placed on "Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur, (2010) 15 SCC 372".
8. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 have opposed the revision-petition. Their contention is that non-petitioner No. 2 is not employed. She was residing with her old ailing father who has expired. She has no independent source of income. She has to look-after herself and her son who has become major who is still dependent on her as he has no source of income. It is also contended that documents pertaining to the petitioner working as an artist and doing translation job on payment of money was also produced before the Court below and the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.
9. It is also contended that in the impugned order the Court below has expressly mentioned that the maintenance is to be paid from the date of application and since the Court has considered every aspect of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be upheld.
10. I have considered the contentions of both the parties.
11. It is pertinent to note that non-petitioner No. 2 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. specifically pleaded that petitioner husband is employed at Navy Directorate and in addition to his job he is working as an actor in serials and is also undertaking the job of private translator and is also into the business of advertisement and that his income is to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- per month. In reply to this paragraph, petitioner mentioned that due to the cases filed by the wife, he is not able to do the working of private translation, advertisement and thus his income has been reduced. He
