Anara Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—List revised. None present from the side of the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. is present.

Heard and perused the records.

By impugned order dated 31.3.2005, Family Court, Allahabad had awarded maintenance to applicant-revisionist, Anara Devi, by allowing her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., from the date of order. The revisionist has challenged this order and prayed for grant of maintenance from the date of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Section 125 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

"(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of order, or if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance."

In Satish Chandra Gupta Vs. Aneeta and Others, (1995) 1 DMC 173 , this Court had earlier held as under:

"ordinary rule is that maintenance to wife is payable from the date of order and exception to this ordinary rule is an order making maintenance payable from the date of application and if recourse to the exception is taken the order must be supported by reasons.

In my opinion the delay in disposal of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is by itself a sufficient ground to grant maintenance to the wife from the date of application. The wife cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in disposal of application for maintenance."

In Basant Lal Vs. State of U.P., (1996) CriLJ 69 : (1995) 1 DMC 507 , this Court had earlier held as under:

"If the Court does not record its reasons in its judgment for ordering the payment of maintenance allowance from the date of the application, the claimant cannot be made to suffer or be prejudiced by the inadvertence or neglect of the Presiding Officer of the Court."

A bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that ordinary rule is that maintenance to wife is payable from the date of order. Exception to this ordinary rule is an order making maintenance payable from the date of application. When an exception has to be made in the ordinary rule making the maintenance payable from the date of application by an order, the order must be supported by reason or reasons.

It is settled law that if an order is passed against any person to his prejudice, then generally he should not be taken by surprise unless some special reasons are there. It is also settled law that maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the date of order unless there are some special reasons, which must be recorded for granting maintenance from any time before passing of it. In present matter, there appears no special reasons that may entitle the revisionist for maintenance from the date of her application. There appears no illegality, impropriety or error in impugned order that may require interference in it during exercise of revisional jurisdiction, therefore, revision is dismissed.