Ram Kishan vs State of U.P. and Others

B.K. Rathi, J.—Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who are wife and son of the applicant, have been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 and Rs. 300 respectively u/s 125, Cr. P.C. by an order dated 18.1.1999 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Varanasi. This order has been challenged in the above revision u/s 397/401, Cr. P.C.

I have heard Sri Vinod Prasad, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 was not present at the time of hearing and therefore, could not be heard.

The revision has not been pressed on merits and no argument has been advanced against the grant of maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has awarded maintenance from the date of application. It is contended that this Court in several cases has directed that reasons should be recorded for awarding the maintenance from the date of application. The judgment shows that no reason has been recorded. The request, therefore, made is that the judgment should be modified to the above extent.

I have considered the arguments, I find that no reason has been recorded for awarding maintenance from the date of application. Accordingly, the order of the Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, dated 18.1.1999 is modified to this extent that the maintenance awarded by him shall be payable from 18.1.1999, i.e. the date of his judgment. However, it may be clarified that in case any amount of maintenance accrued prior to 18.1.1999 has been paid to the opposite parties, neither it shall be recovered from the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 nor it shall be adjusted in the maintenance accrued after 18.1.1999.

The revision is disposed of finally.