Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1124 (RAJ)

Ramakant v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-25

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.10/2015 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.1.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.124/2011 has been dismissed. The trial court vide order dated 30.1.2015 disposed of the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') and has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and her two minor sons from the date of application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while determining the amount of interim maintenance, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not taken into consideration the fact that the income of the petitioner is only Rs. 6,300/- per month and he is not in position to pay the interim maintenance from the date of application as directed by the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not given any reason for giving direction to the petitioner to pay interim maintenance from the date of application. It is contended that in absence of any express reasons given by the trial court, the direction of giving maintenance from the date of application is illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in (2008) 9 SCC 632 and in the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 385 and a judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in Latif Ahamad v. Smt. Najoon Nisha & Ors. reported in 2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 103 and has argued that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, if any court directs to pay maintenance amount from the date of application, it has to give specific reasons for that. 4. reported in 2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 103 and has argued that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, if any court directs to pay maintenance amount from the date of application, it has to give specific reasons for that. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 5. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent No.2 and her two minor sons have no independent source of income to maintain themselves. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she was subjected to domestic violence. The trial court, after taking into consideration the economic and social status of the petitioner and the respondent No.2, has ordered the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and her two minor sons from the date of application. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the trial court has to give specific reasons for directing a person to pay maintenance from the date of application is not tenable. 7. The Hon'ble Apex court in Shail Kumari Devi's case (supra) has 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. 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 (l) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial court is not required to give specific reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application and the only requirement is that the Court has to pass express order that maintenance is liable to be paid from the date of application. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial court is not required to give specific reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application and the only requirement is that the Court has to pass express order that maintenance is liable to be paid from the date of application. Moreover vide impugned orders, the courts below have simply ordered for paying interim maintenance whereas the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 is still pending. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. 9. The criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.