Sanjay Kumar vs Sunita & Anr.

B. K. Rathi, J.—This is a criminal revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P.C. against the order dated 711998 passed by Judge, Family Court, Meerut by which he awarded the maintenance of Rs. 400 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 300 per month to her daughter from the date of the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C.

I have heard Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the Revisionist, Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and the learned A.G.A. and have perused the entire evidence.

The first contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the maintenance has been awarded from the date of the application, Le., 24101994. That no reason has been recorded for awarding the maintenance from the date of the application. It is contended that the maintenance from the date of the application can be awarded only after recording the reasons and the order to that extent is illegal.

4.1 am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. Clause (2) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. reads as follows:

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

Under this clause, therefore, the maintenance can be awarded from the date of the application as well. This provision does not require recording of any reason for awarding maintenance from the date of the application. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the argument that reason should have been recorded for awarding the maintenance from the date of the application.

The next contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a stamp vendor and according to his licence he can sell the stamps upto denomination of Rs. 3,000 only. That earning Rs. 700 per month only and therefore, the maintenance awarded is very excessive.

It can be accepted that the earning of the revisionist is Rs. 700 per month only. He is stamp vendor and might be having sufficient income. The limit that he can keen the stamps upto denomination of Rs. 3,000 does not show that he has only small income. Apart from this it was alleged by the respondent that the revisionist is also running a diary and earning money from the same. The award of maintenance @ Rs. 400 per month and Rs. 300 per month at present time cannot be said to be excessive as it is not possible for a person to fill his valley even by the bread, two times a day in such a small amount. The maintenance awarded, therefore, cannot be said to be excessive.

Lastly it is contended that there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the revisionist. That therefore, there is no sufficient reason for the respondent No. 1 to live separately and to claim maintenance. Regarding this the contention of the respondent is that decree is an exparte, decree and was obtained without, notice to her. That the revisionist has also solemnized the second marriage. It is contended that the judgment of the trial Court show that this fact was not denied by the revisionist. That for this reason the respondent is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. It is also contended that the revisionist was demanding dowry and treating the respondent with cruelty. That due to his cruelty it is not possible for the respondent to live with the revisionist. As against this no cogent reason has been given by the revisionist as to why the respondent does not want to live with him. After all the respondent has married with the revisionist to live with him and these must be some cogent reasons for her to refuse to live with the revisionist. The revisionist could not show any cogent reason.

9, In these circumstances the reason for the respondent to live separately and to claim maintenance is also sufficient.

Considering the circumstances, the revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.