A wife's refusal to cohabit due to ill-treatment justifies her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Family Court has discretion to order maintenance from the date of application.

JUDGMENT

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

Heard Sri. Mohd Ashraf, Advocate holding brief of Sri. Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Sanjay Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the revisionist has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Barabanki in Criminal Misc. Case No. 553/2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, filed by the opposite party no. 2- wife of the revisionist.

3. The Family Court has ordered the revisionist to pay Rs. 2000/- per month towards maintenance to opposite party No.2 w.e.f. the date of the application and Rs. 4,000/- from the date of the order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that in the statement of the opposite party No.2 recorded by the Family Court, she categorically stated that she is not willing to resume co-habitation with the revisionist on any condition and a similar statement has been given by her father (P.W.-2).

5. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that in view of the aforesaid statement of the opposite party no.2 and her father, her claim for maintenance is barred by the provision contained in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which provides that," no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."

6. Opposite party No.2 has stated in her statement that she got married to the revisionist on 11.11.2018; that her husband had given dowry as per his status, but the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they used to beat her and harass her even for food. She further stated that when her brother and father had gone to her matrimonial home on 25.08.2020 to bring her back to her father's house, the revisionist and his family members had abused and beaten them and since then she is living with her father's home. It was in these factual background that the revisionist stated that she declined to live with the revisionist because of the ill treatment meted out to her for demanding dowry. The refusal of the opposite party No.2 to live with the revisionist cannot be said to be without any sufficient reason. Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that claim of the opposite party No.2 for maintenance is barred by Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that impugned order is bad for the reason that it directs payment of maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- from the date of application whereas the opposite party No.2 had not filed any application for interim maintenance pending disposal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, in these circumstance, the Family Court could have ordered payment of maintenance w.e.f. the date of the order only.

8. In this regard Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. empowers the Family Court to pass an order for payment of maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of application. The Family Court has exercised its discretion in ordering the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of the order and Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of the application. The application was filed on 02.09.2020 and it has been decided on 13.10.2023 i.e. after more than 3 years and 3 months since its filing and during this period, the opposite party No.2 remained without any assistance of maintenance by the revisionist. In these circumstances, the Family Court has not committed any error in ordering the revisionist to pay maintenance amount to half of the maintenance payable after passing of the order, with effect from the