SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26724

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
Smt. Ishrat Khanam And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Shakir @ Sahil Khan – Respondent
CRR 931/2013



Advocates:
M.K. Khokar,

Maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should be awarded from the date of application, not just from the date of the order.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Family Court awarded Rs.1500/- to applicant no.1 and Rs.500/- to applicant no.2, totaling Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order - Court found no proof of respondent's income, but noted respondent's claim of earning Rs.130 per day as a laborer - The Family Court's order lacked reasoning for the date of maintenance, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnish Vs. Neha, which entitles applicants to maintenance from the date of application. (Paras 10)

(B) Maintenance - The court emphasized that maintenance should be awarded from the date of application, not merely from the date of the order. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The revision arises from a maintenance order dated 18.07.2013, where the Family Court awarded maintenance to the applicants based on the respondent's claimed income.

Findings of Court:
The court modified the order to grant maintenance from the date of application.

Issues: The main issue was whether maintenance should be awarded from the date of application or the date of the order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that maintenance should be awarded from the date of application, aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed.

ORDER

The present revision is arising out of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.246/2013 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. The petition is pending since 2013. Considering the same, the matter is hearing finally.

By the impugned order, the Family court has awarded Rs.1500/- to the applicant no.1 and Rs.500/- to the applicant no.2. Thus, total Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance from the date of order.

Upon perusal of the order and the finding in para 10 this Court finds that the applicant could not prove any certain income of the respondent. On the contrary alongwith reply, the respondent has filed a certificate that he is earning Rs.130 per day as labourer. Considering the same, the family court has awarded Rs.1500/- per month to the applicant no.1 and Rs.500/- per month to the applicant no.2 total Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order. This court does not find any illegality in the order so far quantum of compensation is concerned. However, the family Court has passed the order of maintenance from the date of order without assigning any reason which is contrary to judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnish Vs. Neha reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569 , wherein it has been held that the applicant is entitled for maintenance from the date of application.

Considering the same, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the applicants shall be entitled for maintenance from the date of application.

With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands partly allowed and disposed off.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top