Kamruddin vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Chandra, J.—This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 12.6.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2007. Waheeda v. State of U.P. may be stayed.

In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Waheeda moved an application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Kamruddin in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Jaunpur. That application was decided on merit vide order dated 2.12.2006. The Magistrate rejected the application of Smt. Waheeda for her maintenance, but allowed the application for maintenance of her daughters Km. Hina and Km. Rina. Against that order Criminal Revision No. 14/2007 was filed which was ultimately decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur. The revision was allowed and Smt. Waheeda was also allowed maintenance @ Rs. 2,000 p.m. from the date of her application, i.e., 14.8.2002. In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur passed on 12.6.2009 has been challenged.

The contention of the applicant is that as a normal rule the maintenance should be allowed from the date of order and if the maintenance is granted from the date of application moved u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure then special reasons should be given by the Court.

I have considered over the matter and also heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Shail Kumari Devi and Another Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, The answer to his arguments has itself been given in the above noted judgment. The Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under in para 47 of the judgment reported in the above said journal:

We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application u/s 125 of 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 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 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 (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect.

It is clear from the above noted observation that if the maintenance is allowed from the date of application then an express order is necessary in that regard but no special reasons are required to be given by the Court. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed an express order that the maintenance shall be given from the date of application and thus the provisions of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied with.

In view of the above I feel that there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur nor there is any reason to stay the aforesaid order.

The application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, dismissed.