Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 284 (CHH)

Ajit Kumar v. Kirti Bai

2014-07-28

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. In a proceeding initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'Cr.P.C.') by non-applicant Kirti Bai claiming an allowance for maintenance from her son applicant Ajit Kumar, the Family Court, Ambikapur, by impugned, order dated 26-8-2011 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 80 of 2008, granted an allowance of Rs. 1,200 per month for maintenance from 17-7-2008, i.e. the date of filing the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. by the mother. Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/son would submit that the monthly allowance for maintenance granted at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month from the date of the application is contrary to Section125(2), Cr.P.C. as no special reason has been recorded for granting the allowance for maintenance from the date of the application. He would also impugn the quantum of the allowance granted to the non-applicant/mother for maintenance. 2. On the other hand, Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/mother, opposing the contention raised against the quantum of the allowance granted for maintenance, would submit that by virtue of Section 125(2), Cr.P.C. only an express order granting the allowance for maintenance from the date of the application is required and no special reason is required to be recorded and as such, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. provides as under: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-- xxx xxx xxx (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be." 4. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak alias Kishun B. Pathak (2008) 9 SCC 632 : AIR 2008 SC 3006 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: "43. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 5. In Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma, AIR 2013 SC 1541 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observing that Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation, held as under: "10. Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the order made under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a civil Court." 6. Very recently, the aforesaid principle has been reiterated and followed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, 2014 (8) SCALE 573 : AIR 2014 SC 2875 . 7. Thus, after having examined the statutory provision contained in Section 125(2), Cr.P.C. and the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above noted cases, I find that an allowance for maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. What is required is to pass an express order or granting an allowance for maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance. No special reasons are required to be assigned for granting the allowance for maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance. 8. In the instant case, the Family Court has expressly passed the impugned order directing that the order granting the allowance of Rs. 1,200 per month in favour of the mother for her maintenance would be payable from 17-7-2008, i.e. the date of the application made by her for maintenance. 8. In the instant case, the Family Court has expressly passed the impugned order directing that the order granting the allowance of Rs. 1,200 per month in favour of the mother for her maintenance would be payable from 17-7-2008, i.e. the date of the application made by her for maintenance. Thus, the requirement of Section 125(2), Cr.P.C. for passing an express order stood satisfied and, therefore, the Family Court is absolutely justified in granting the allowance for maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance. 9. The next submission was that the quantum of allowance for maintenance granted by the Family Court is excessive. The award of the sum of Rs. 1,200 per month towards allowance for maintenance cannot be said to be excessive in view of the agricultural land of 11.81 acres, situated in village Neelkanthpur, being cultivated by the applicant/son and also keeping in view the price-index. Concludingly, the revision being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.