Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1723 (GUJ)

MAHESHSINH BANESINH RATHOD v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2024-08-13

GITA GOPI

body2024
JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. By way of this application, the revisionist-applicant-husband has made a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31.05.2023 below Exhibit 152 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar. 2. The applicant has stated in the memo that he has not challenged the maintenance amount of Rs.6,500/- from 07.09.2016 to 31.12.2017, Rs.7,000/- from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2021 and Rs.8,000/- of every month from 01.02.2022 ordered by the learned Family Court below Exhibit 152 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2021 and is ready and willing to pay the maintenance amount to the children. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Harshadray A. Dave for the applicant-revisionist submitted that the respondent No. 2-wife would not be entitled for the maintenance amount since she had been harassing the revisionist and the family members by making false allegations. It is further submitted that the revisionist and the family members were acquitted qua the false allegations under Sections 307, 323, 504, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961. It is stated that the fact of acquittal becomes germane to the issue, inspite of that, the learned Family Court has not appreciated the acquittal, which clearly proves that there was no cruelty or harassment to the wife for her to move out of the matrimonial house. 4. It is also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’) the learned Family Court has not assigned reasons for granting maintenance from the date of application and therefore, it is stated that the order of maintenance to the wife from the date of application, would be illegal. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Harshadray A. Dave submitted that from the very beginning, the wife had an ulterior motive and with a malicious intention had filed the criminal complaint. The acquittal order on 31.07.2021 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol proves the case of the revisionist and when the wife on her own volition has left the family then under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she is not entitled for the maintenance amount. 6. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. The acquittal order on 31.07.2021 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol proves the case of the revisionist and when the wife on her own volition has left the family then under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she is not entitled for the maintenance amount. 6. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Harshadray A. Dave submitted that the provision is for the maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. Hence, the revisionist has given a specific challenge to the order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. Maulik M. Soni submitted that the wife has the responsibility of two minors and she from the very beginning has alleged cruelty as the husband and his family members have demanded dowry and after the birth of the daughter, the wife was rebuked by the family members and was harassed stating that if she wants to remain in the family with the daughter, then she has to bring money for the purchase of vehicle. The respondent- wife expected that after the birth of her son on 11.09.2010, the family members would mend their behavior with her but still was ill-treated. It is further submitted that the criminal case which was against the applicant was on the basis of extra- marital adulterous life of the husband. The wife has very categorically deposed about the person with whom the revisionist was having an adulterous relation but the fact could not be proved during the trial. At present, the respondent and the children are staying in the Flat which belongs to the revisionist. It is also submitted that the respondent had no other reason to leave the matrimonial house with her two children, but was because of the cruelty of the applicant-revisionist and the family members. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni submitted that a concurrent view has been taken by almost all the High Courts of India and specifically and conclusively in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 that the maintenance amount should be ordered to be paid from the date of the application. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni submitted that a concurrent view has been taken by almost all the High Courts of India and specifically and conclusively in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 that the maintenance amount should be ordered to be paid from the date of the application. It is further submitted that the act of the husband could be noted from his conduct, that inspite of earning a good amount of money, he has failed to maintain wife and his children. The revisionist-husband has admitted in the proceedings that he has not paid the school fees of both the children from the year 2016. It is also submitted that the wife was constrained to file criminal case since the husband was having extra marital relations. It is further submitted that though the family was having their own ancestral house, inspite of that, the revisionist-husband had tried to project that he is staying with his sister and brother-in-law so also that he is staying in a rental house. Infact, it is the specific allegations of the wife that the husband is staying with some other lady. The divorce petition has also been filed by the husband and many complaints have been lodged against the wife by the husband, while all the cases which have been filed by the wife are under the statutory provision of law and thus, learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni submitted that it cannot be stated that the criminal cases were filed to harass the husband or there was cruelty of the wife against the husband. 9. The main contention raised by learned Advocate for the revisionist-applicant Mr. Harshadray A. Dave was about the filing of the criminal case by the wife against the husband. In the judgment, the Family Court in Criminal Case No. 133 of 2021 (Old Case No. 668 of 2016) noted about the cases which has been filed by the wife against the husband as: (1) Kalol Sessions Court, Sessions Case No. 4 of 2017. (2) Gandhinagar Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2018. (3) Gandhinagar Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 660 of 2016 (under Domestic Violenct Act). (4) Gandhinagar Court, (under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) the present matter has been converted into Criminal Case No. 133 of 2021. (2) Gandhinagar Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2018. (3) Gandhinagar Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 660 of 2016 (under Domestic Violenct Act). (4) Gandhinagar Court, (under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.) the present matter has been converted into Criminal Case No. 133 of 2021. (5) Over and above, a complaint has been filed at Mahila Police Station, Sector 16, Gandhinagar. 10. After 2016, the revisionist-husband has admitted that he has not paid the fees of the children. A suggestion was put that he was having relation with one-Savitaben Dave and therefore, he was physically and mentally harassing the wife, the suggestion was denied by the husband. The learned Family Court Judge has observed on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that there are allegations of physical and mental harassment and cruelty and demand of dowry. The wife was beaten and she was removed from the house with only the clothes worn by her. There are also allegations that she was forced to consume poison. The learned Judge has also referred to the First Information Report bearing I-C.R. No. 98 of 2016 filed before the Kalol Taluka Police Station, qua Sessions Case, wherein the complainant as the wife has given evidence that without any reasonable cause she was thrown out of the house and she was assaulted. The learned Judge has noted that if such evidence are on record, then the burden is on the husband to prove that without any reasonable cause, the wife has deserted him and that allegations are false. 11. The applicant-revisionist was required to prove by way of evidence that he was wrongly framed in the proceedings under Sections 307 and 498A of the IPC. The evidence which has come on record shows that on 25.07.2016, at about 6.30 in the morning, the wife had come to the house of the husband at Village Aluva when he was sleeping outside the house. The revisionist husband alleged that the wife started beating him and tore the clothes and before, the husband could understand anything, the wife consumed some liquid which she had brought in the bottle and pretended to be unconscious. Therefore, on being frightened, the husband took the wife immediately to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital. The revisionist husband alleged that the wife started beating him and tore the clothes and before, the husband could understand anything, the wife consumed some liquid which she had brought in the bottle and pretended to be unconscious. Therefore, on being frightened, the husband took the wife immediately to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital. As per the husband, the family members of the wife were already present there and they started quarelling with the husband; the wife gained consciousness in the hospital after some time. As the family members of the wife started quarrelling with the husband, he left the hospital and according to him, it was a conspiracy to file a complaint against him at Kalol Taluka Police Station which was registered as I-C.R. No. 98 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 498A and 114 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act. The learned Family Court Judge has rightly observed that the husband has failed to discharge the onus on him and has also failed to show that the allegations made by the wife are false. 12. The arguments was raised that the wife had accused the husband of harassment by filing of various cases and the allegations of demand of dowry or cruelty could not be proved in the proceedings of Sections 307, 323, 504, 498A and 114 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act. There is a difference between filing of false cases to frame the husband and others, while that of cases where the allegations could not be proved in the Court of law. Mere acquittal in the proceedings under Section 498A, 307, 323, 504, 498A and 114 of IPC would by itself could not be taken as a prima- facie fact that the husband has not subjected the wife to cruelty. The wife would not be in a position to prove the cruelty meted out to her during the trial since in the matrimonial home, she would not have any witness standing in her favour. The wife is suffering at the hands of the husband and the family members all alone where she would not have any person to support her or any independent witness who would have seen the offence. The wife is suffering at the hands of the husband and the family members all alone where she would not have any person to support her or any independent witness who would have seen the offence. In a criminal trial, the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of the wife would not be proved by way of any corroboration, as even the neighbors at the matrimonial home would hardly support the case. We hardly find a case where the neighbors come forward in the Court of law to depose in matrimonial dispute in favour of the daughter-in-law. Except the words of the aggrieved, there would not be any other evidence. Further, it would be very hard to expect from the children to be witnesses in the trial proceedings to take side of one of the parents. 13. The present revisionist had filed a complaint No. 1101 of 2017 at Vastrapur Police Station on 20.09.2017 stating that the wife would often come at his work place and threaten him, to force the higher authority to remove him from the service. In the complaint No. 148 of 2019 was filed by the parents of the revisionist at Mahila Police Station, Sector 16, alleging that 10.04.2019 the wife she had come at Village Aluva and had quarrelled with the parents. Another application is Chapter Case No. 415 of 2020 for the proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Executive Magistrate through Balwa Police alleging that the wife had quarreled with the parents threatening to take total possession of the house at Village Aluva. 14. The house in which the wife and children were staying, i.e. Flat No. I-403, Saundarya-444, Sargasan, Gandhinagar, in the year 2016, the revisionist had taken H.D.F.C. Loan and since he failed to pay every month installment, the Bank had sealed the property in October 2020. Thereafter, it stated that the accommodation was made for residence of the applicant and the children at Village Aluva, but alleged that the wife wanted to forcibly take possession of the parents house a complaint was filed at Kalol Taluka Police Station. As could be noted, there is a case filed by the wife against the revisionist and Savitaben Dave alleging adultery and the said friend of the revisionist has also filed a complaint against the wife. 15. As could be noted, there is a case filed by the wife against the revisionist and Savitaben Dave alleging adultery and the said friend of the revisionist has also filed a complaint against the wife. 15. The record suggest that both the sides have filed cases against each other. The husband could not demonstrate that the complaint made against him was with a malicious intent. He could have for the incident of 25.07.2016, filed a counter complaint against his wife and the family members. It is also required to be noted that for the complaint under Sections 307, 323, 504, 498A and 114 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act when invoked, the prosecution conducted by the State, would have a prime say in concluding the evidence, while the victim wife would have no control over the trial. The husband could have filed a criminal case against the wife on the ground of cruelty. The revisionist could have filed a complaint against the wife for the allegations of false charges. There are cases where it has been observed that Section 498A of IPC has been misused, but unless such misuse is not proved by the revisionist in the proceedings before the learned Family Court, it would not have been possible for the learned Family Court to believe that the action against the husband was a frivolous complaint. Had the husband found the FIR as false, then he could have taken action for quashment. 16. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 , it has been held that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not altered by introduction of Section 498A of IPC and Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Evidence Act’). If the wife fails to prove the harassment which falls within the meaning of explanation B of Section 498A of IPC, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be read. Thus, in such cases, it would be very difficult for the woman to prove the harassment which she suffered as there would not be any corroborative evidence to prove her case. 17. Thus, in such cases, it would be very difficult for the woman to prove the harassment which she suffered as there would not be any corroborative evidence to prove her case. 17. It was also noted by the learned Family Court Judge that the husband has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, rather he had filed a Suit for divorce. The applicant-husband has not moved the Court for even making a prayer for the custody of both the children. This itself shows that the husband is not willing to keep his wife and both the minors with him. 18. The allegations against the revisionist husband are to the effect that the husband was having extra marital relations with a woman who has been named. A suggestion was raised to the revisionist that because of these relations, he was physically and mentally torturing the wife. The wife in her evidence before the learned Family Court has urged of physical and mental harassment as well as cruelty in the form of demand of dowry and has stated that she was beaten and was driven out of the house. The wife has also alleged that she was forced to consume poisonous liquid. It cannot be believed that the wife had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable grounds. 19. The revisionist husband is earning by working as an Assistant Manager in Honda. The wife has examined Jay Kanubhai Patel at Exhibit 46 to prove the income. The evidence by way of pay slip was produced from Exhibits 48 to Exhibits 50 and one letter of the Company at Exhibit 51 and the learned Family Court has noted the monthly income in the form of salary @ Rs.50,000/- per month. Further, it has been observed that the applicant was also earning as an L.I.C. Agent which was discerned from the statement of Savings Bank A/c. of State Bank of India from 01.03.2020 to 21.12.2022. In addition, the revisionist-husband is also having agricultural land at Village Aluva. There are three houses in the name of his father at Aluva for which the evidence was produced at Exhibits 93, 94 and 95. The income of from the salary for the month of January 2020 after the payment of tax was noted to be Rs.56,255/- from M/s. Landmark Automobiles (P) Limited. There are three houses in the name of his father at Aluva for which the evidence was produced at Exhibits 93, 94 and 95. The income of from the salary for the month of January 2020 after the payment of tax was noted to be Rs.56,255/- from M/s. Landmark Automobiles (P) Limited. A four- wheeler Wagon-R Car bearing Registration No. GJ-1- HR-6146 and a two Wheeler Vego bearing Registration No. GJ-1919 is of the ownership of the revisionist. The income from the agricultural property was also considered of Village Mansa, Block No. /Survey No. 553 and 546 which are in the joint name of the father, mother, three sisters and revisionist. Agricultural land of eight bighas at Village Aluva was noted and the yearly income thereon has been considered as Rs.5,00,000/- has been considered. The commission income of the revisionist as being the Agent of LIC has been noted as Rs.1,50,000/-. 20. Considering the above, the learned Family Court, Gandhinagar has ordered maintenance in the following manner: (a) Maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1, from the date of application, i.e. from 07.09.2016 till 31.12.2017. (b) Maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the minor applicants No. 2 and 3 from 07.09.2016 till 31.12.2017. (c) Maintenance amount of Rs.10,500/- per month to the applicant No. 1, from 01.01.2018 till 31.12.2019. (d) Maintenance amount of Rs.6,500/- per month to the minor applicants No. 2 and 3 from 01.01.2018 till 31.12.2019. (e) Maintenance amount of Rs.11,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1, from 01.01.2020 till 31.12.2021. (f) Maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the minor applicants No. 2 and 3 from 01.01.2020 till 31.12.2021. (g) Maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1 from 01.01.2022. (h) Maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the minor applicants No. 2 and 3 from 01.01.2022. 21. The learned Family Court Judge also observed that the revisionist-husband stated that he is staying with sister and brother-in-law in the Vejalpur from 2016. To show that the revisionist husband has to spend for house rent, he has produced the Rent Agreement at Exhibit 123, Annapurna Tiffin Service Bill at Exhibit 124 for June 2022 and August 2022. The learned Judge has also considered the house rent, the tiffin expenses as well as the expenses of the parents to conclude the maintenance amount. 22. To show that the revisionist husband has to spend for house rent, he has produced the Rent Agreement at Exhibit 123, Annapurna Tiffin Service Bill at Exhibit 124 for June 2022 and August 2022. The learned Judge has also considered the house rent, the tiffin expenses as well as the expenses of the parents to conclude the maintenance amount. 22. In the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) entitlement of wife to seek maintenance amount has been examined. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein-below: “32. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 CrPC is predicated on two conditions: (i) the husband has sufficient means and (ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. 33. The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined by a civil court/Family Court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 34. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, 1975 SCC (Cri) 563, the Supreme Court held that under Section 125(1) CrPC only a wife who is “unable to maintain herself” is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held: “19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.” (Emphasis supplied). 35. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.” (Emphasis supplied). 35. Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs.500 “in the whole.” In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs.500 was done away with by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act states that the wife had to wait for several years before being granted maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an express provision for grant of “interim maintenance.” The Magistrate was vested with the power to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. Under sub-section (2) of Section 125, the court is conferred with the discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of the application. Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, the applicant for grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent. 37. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 , this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 38. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 , this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and children. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 , this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.” 23. A second contention which has been raised is that the order of granting maintenance amount from the date of application is not in consonance with provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with various details, discussed the divergent view of different High Courts and had concluded by referring to this issue of the date from which the maintenance was to be awarded concluding that it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. The Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the said issue in its decision in Paragraphs 94 to 113 which reads as under: “IV. Date from which Maintenance to be Awarded: 94. There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date from which an Order of maintenance may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not provide the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded. Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision which provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of application. 95. In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent. (a) From date of application: 96. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent. (a) From date of application: 96. The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependant children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years. 97. The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu, (1996) 1 OLR 361 held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order. 98. In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena, 2000 SCC Online Ori 217, the Orissa High Court was considering an application under Section 125 CrPC, wherein it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was within the discretion of the Court, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena, (2010) 93 AIC 726 wherein it was reiterated that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. 99. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna v. Dharam Raj, 1991 SCC Online MP 6 held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. 99. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna v. Dharam Raj, 1991 SCC Online MP 6 held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view that the “normal rule” was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which the Legislature did not intend. Reasons must be recorded in both cases i.e. when maintenance is awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of order. 100. The law governing payment of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda, 2019 SCC Online All 5428. The Court held that the date of application should always be regarded as the starting point for payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for maintenance under Section 18 of HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment. The High Court held that the normal inference should be that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the application, which may arise due to paucity of time of the Court, or on account of the conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there was a delay of seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to maintenance from the date of application/suit. 101. The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v. Rukmani, 2019 SCC Online Del 11709 held that where the wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses towards maintaining herself and the minor child/children, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. It is neither a matter of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the husband. (b) From the date of order 102. The second view that maintenance ought to be awarded from the date of order is based on the premise that the general rule is to award maintenance from the date of order, and grant of maintenance from the date of application must be the exception. The foundation of this view is based on the interpretation of Section 125(2) CrPC which provides: “125. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for 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.” (Emphasis supplied). The words “or, if so ordered” in Section 125 has been interpreted to mean that where the court is awarding maintenance from the date of application, special reasons ought to be recorded. 103. In Bina Devi v. State of U.P. reported in (2010) 69 ACC 19, the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of Section 125(2) CrPC held that when maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) CrPC is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order. 104. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v. Sangeeta Verma, 2020 SCC Online MP 2657 directed that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of the order. (c) From the date of service of summons 105. The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of service of summons upon the respondent. 106. The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair, 1982 SCC Online Ker 51 was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High Court held that maintenance must be awarded to the wife from the date on which summons were served in the main divorce petition. 106. The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair, 1982 SCC Online Ker 51 was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High Court held that maintenance must be awarded to the wife from the date on which summons were served in the main divorce petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Samir Kr. Banerjee v. Sujata Banerjee, 1965 SCC Online Cal 196 and held that Section 24 of the HMA does not contain any provision that maintenance must be awarded from a specific date. The Court may, in exercise of its discretion, award maintenance from the date of service of summons. 107. The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das v. Pradyumna Kumar Das, 1965 SCC Online Cal 196 was considering an application for interim maintenance filed under Section 24 HMA by the wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the husband. The Court held that the ordinary rule is to award maintenance from the date of service of summons. It was held that in cases where the applicant in the maintenance petition is also the petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance becomes payable from the date when summons is served upon the respondent in the main proceeding. 108. In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar Das, 2009 SCC Online Ori 21, the Orissa High Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the date when the husband entered appearance. The Court was considering an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the wife and minor child from the date of the order. In an appeal filed by the wife and minor child seeking maintenance from the date of application, the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to assign any reasons in support of its order, and directed: (SCC Online Ori Para 8) “8. … The learned Judge, Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. … The learned Judge, Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When admittedly the parties are living separately and prima facie it appears that the petitioners have no independent source of income, therefore, in our view order should have been passed for payment of interim maintenance from the date of appearance of the opposite Party-husband.” (Emphasis supplied) Discussion and Directions 109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 , this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 , this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application. 111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. 111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the court concerned. 112. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 , the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held: (SCC p. 196, Para 13) 13.3........purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” (Emphasis supplied) 113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 24. The revisionist has failed to prove the ground raised in the present application. There are no cogent reasons raised to entertain the present application and therefore, the present application is rejected. The order dated 31.05.2023 below Exhibit 152 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar is just and proper. The revisionist has failed to prove the ground raised in the present application. There are no cogent reasons raised to entertain the present application and therefore, the present application is rejected. The order dated 31.05.2023 below Exhibit 152 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar is just and proper. The revisionist-husband has failed to show any illegality or anything contrary to attract the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Notice is discharged.