Point of Law : Right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Srinath Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA, who appears for the opposite party no.1 (State of U.P.). In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to issue notices to opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

2. Challenge in the present revision purported to be under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to the order dated 12.8.2021 passed by the court of learned Additional Family Judge/Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having Case No.460/2019, (CNRI-UPKN0200164/2019, Smt. Shalini and others Vs. Navin Agarwal whereby maintenance awarded to the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

3. Brief facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details as pleaded and set forth before the court below as well as before this Court in the present revision are that the opposite party no.2 solemnized marriage with the revisionist herein on 10.5.2003 as per Hindu ritual and rites at Status Club Cantt., Kanpur city.

4. According to the allegations as set forth in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. so preferred by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, it was alleged that consequent to the marriage which was solemnized on 10.5.2003, the opposite party no.2 brought various gifts in the honour of the revisionist and his family but neither the revisionist nor his parents were happy with the gifts so offered by the family of the opposite party no. 2 and they asked for dowry of 4 lakhs. On 28.10.2004 with the wedlock of the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist, the opposite party no.3 was born. Even after the birth of the opposite party no.3, there was no change in the attitude of either the revisionist or his parents.

5. On 25.10.2007, the revisionist and his parents had thrown away the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from their house only with the clothes which they were wearing from that point of time whey the were residing with their parents (Matrimonial house). It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 is/was mentally broken on account whereof she is not able to earn anything and she is completely dependent upon her parents.

6. Further it has been pleaded that the opposite party no.2 has no source of income and it has become virtually impossible for her to sustain herself & minor daughter as according to the opposite party no.2, the revisionist has his own accommodation and he is/was working in Chandra Agency and he is getting huge salary in this regard.

7. On being noticed the revisionist herein filed its objections.

8. Thereafter now an order has been passed by the court of Additional Family Judge, Family Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar on 12.8.2021 whereby the applications so preferred under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance has been allowed in part and the opposite party no.2 has been awarded maintenance of Rs.4000/-per month as well as the opposite party no.3 being a minor has been awarded maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month totaling to Rs.7000/- per month.

9. Assailing the order dated 12.8.2021 passed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Case No. 460 of 2019, the revisionist is before this Court.

10. Before proceeding to decide the present case, it has to be kept in mind that the present proceedings which have been initiated before this Court is under the provisions contained under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. being revisional jurisdiction.

11. The scope and the extent of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is no more res integra as this Court can only interfere in the order under challenge when the same is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records as the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order mainly because another view is possible.

12. In the light of the well settled principle of law as culled out by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present case is to be decided.

13. Brief background of the statutor