Davi vs Purshottam

B.R. Arora, J.—This miscellaneous criminal revision is directed against the order dated May 2, 1989, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in criminal revision petition No. 51 of 1988, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for the payment of the amount of the maintenance from the date of the order.

Smt. Davi filed an application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. against the non-petitioner Purshottam in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, for grant of maintenance to her three children. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jodhpur, by his order dated October 13, 1987, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to the three children of Smt. Davi. and directed their father Purshottam to pay the amount of maintenance from the date of application. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jodhpur, Purshottam filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The revision petition was ultimately decided by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated May. 1989. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, maintained the order granting maintenance to the three children but directed that the amount will be payable from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the wife Smt. Davi on behalf of her three children.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in ordering for the grant of the maintenance from the date of the order. The maintenance was rightly granted by the learned trial Court from the date of the application. The learned Counsel for the non- petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure intend to fulfil an essential purpose and provide preventive remedy for securing the payment of maintenance allowance, which can be granted quickly and in deserving cases with effect from the date of application itself. Sub-clause (2) of Section 125 Cr. P.C. specifically provides that the amount of maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order or from the date of the application for maintenance. While granting the maintenance from the date of the application, it is not necessary that the Court should assign reasons for the same. If the circumstances so desire, the maintenance can be awarded from the date of the application. The object of these provisions is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children by providing a simple speedy but limited relief. These provisions intend to protect the neglected wife and children from hunger and to try for removing the human-difficulties. While passing an order under these provisions, asking a person to pay maintenance to his wife, children or parents, as the case may be, the Magistrate does not impose any punishment on such person for a crime committed by him, but allows a reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the neglected persons. Under the provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C., as has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, the Court is even authorised to grant an interim maintenance to the applicant till the applicant is finally disposed of. A bare reading of these Sections enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure would show that a Court, while passing the order as to from which date the maintenance is to be granted can look-into the fact of delaying tactics adopted by the respondent, the requirements of the applicant and other circumstances. If the application is not disposed-of due to heavy pendency of the work-in the Court for a considerable peiod, then the applicant is not at fault and the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application itself. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for not allowing the maintenance from the date of the application and has allowed the maintenance from the date of the order. In my view, the order passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference.

In the result, the revision-petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.