Ashok Kumar Juneja vs Shanti Devi

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance from the petitioner herein before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar in Case No. 8/3 of 1992. This petition was instituted on 20.1.1992 and was decided on 30.1.1995 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar awarding maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 350/ per month from the date of order. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1995 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The respondent also filed Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1995. Both these petitions were disposed of by a common order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 18.3.1996 whereby while confirming the order of the trial Court that the present petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/ per month to the respondent herein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar directed that the maintenance shall be paid from the date of the application instead of the date of order of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner has come forward in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has denied marriage with the respondent and that the respondent who has moved the Court for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has not been able to prove the marriage. He further contends that the trial Court as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the judgment of the Civil Court to hold that there is a valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which according to him, is wrong. According to him, that was a suit filed by the present petitioner for declaring that the respondent herein is not the legally wedded wife, which was dismissed. He contends that the courts below were wrong in placing reliance upon this judgment to hold that there has been a marriage between the parties. But whatever it is, it has rightly been contended by the counsel for the respondent that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not to sit as a Court of further revision or critically analyse the facts which have already been decided not only by the trial Court but also by the learned Sessions Judge in revision. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below that there is a valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent herein. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, in these days when the cost of living if so high, it cannot be said that the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 350/ per month is excessive. Therefore, the same has to be sustained.

On other contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in granting maintenance from the date of the application instead of the date of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate without giving any reasons. Of course, Section 129 Cr.P.C. does not enjoin upon the trial Magistrate to give any special reason for granting maintenance from the date of the application, but the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional Court ought not to have interfered with this order of the trial Court without giving any reasons for grant of maintenance from the date of application. Although this point was raised initially at the time of the arguments, both the counsel ultimately agreed that the maintenance granted for the period from the date of application to the date of the order of the learned Magistrate be reduced to half of the period only, i.e. the respondent will be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/ per month for half the period from the date of application to the date of order. From the date of order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner shall be liable to pay maintenance as granted by the learned Magistrate.

With these observations, this petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is directed to deposit into the trial Court the entire amount of arrears, less the amount already paid to the respondent, within a period of 45 days from this date. The petitioner who is also present in Court personally, undertakes to deposit all the arrears of maintenance before the trial Magistrate within the time specified above.