Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 916 (RAJ)

Ameen Khan v. State of Rajasthan

1998-08-26

G.L.GUPTA

body1998
Honble GUPTA, J.–This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 29.9.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent Praveen Bano and the ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of application instead of date of order. (2). The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are these. Mst. Fakra was married to Ameen Khan some times in the year 1981. Praveen Bano was borne of the wedlock. The marital relations of the husband and wife did not go well. Mst. Fakra filed an application u/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that she was turned out of house and was neglected by her husband. In that application maintenance for daughter was also claimed. The husband came out with the case that he had already divorced his wife and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Evidence was produced by both the parties. The learned Judicial Magistrate partly allowed the application and granted maintenance to the wife upto the date of the divorce. The application for maintenance of the minor daughter was rejected. This order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge who set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for deciding afresh as regards the maintenance to the daughter. Thereafter vide order dt.12.6.97 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the daughter was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per months from 12.6.97 i.e. the date of Order. That order was challenged by preferring revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh who vide impu- gned order held that daughter was entitled to maintenance from the date of application i.e. w.e.f. 2.12.88. (3). The contention of Mr. Gill is that the learned Sessions Judge has not assigned reasons for the grant of maintenance from the date of application, and as the normal rule of maintenance allowance is that it is payable from the date of order the order of the Sessions Judge is illegal. He places reliance on the cases of Qamruddin vs. Srimati Rashida (1). (4). As against this Mr. He places reliance on the cases of Qamruddin vs. Srimati Rashida (1). (4). As against this Mr. Sandhu contends that the learned Sessions Judge has decided the matter on the basis of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Savita Sharma vs. Shri Krishan Murari (2) and there is no illegality in the Order. (5). I have carefully considered the above arguments. The rulings relied on by both the learned counsel are Division Bench Cases. In the case of Qamruddin (supra) it has been observed that a bare reading of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. shows that allowance shall be payable from the date of order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance and there should be some reasons for ordering maintenance from the date of application. The Division Bench of this Court, however, in the case of Smt. Savita(supra) had observed that maintenance should be granted from date of application and not from date of order. (6). Section 125(2) reads as follows:- ``(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. The plain meaning of the words used in Sub-Section (2) is that if no date from which the maintenance is granted, is specified in the order, the allowance shall be payable from the date of the order. However, the Court in its discretion can always specify that allowance shall be payable from the date of application. (7). The case of Smt. Savita Sharma (supra) was decided much before the decision of Qamruddin (supra). In the case of Qamruddin the case of Smt. Savita Sharma has not been referred to. It seems that the case of Smt. Savita Sharma was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided the case of Qamrud- din. It is settled principle of precedents that if there are conflicting views of the coordinate Benches, the view taken by the earlier Bench should be followed. (8). As already stated, the plain meaning of the words used in Sub- Section (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that if no date is specified in the order, the maintenance is payable from the date of the order but the Court has a discretion to specify that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of application. (9). (8). As already stated, the plain meaning of the words used in Sub- Section (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that if no date is specified in the order, the maintenance is payable from the date of the order but the Court has a discretion to specify that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of application. (9). Apart from this, in the instant case there are obvious reasons for the grant of maintenance from the date of the application. Praveen Bano was not granted interim maintenance. The case remained pending for about nine years for no fault of the minor girl. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified to grant maintenance to her from the date of application. (10). There is absolutely no illegality in the impugned order. (11). No other contention is raised against the impugned order. (12). Consequently, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.