Sheikh Iftikhar Ahmad vs Rehana Majid and Another

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—By the medium of the instant revision petition, petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 27.4.2004 passed by

learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar in the petition titled Rehana Majid and Anr. v. Sheikh Iftikhar, proceedings u/s 488, Cr. PC, on the grounds

taken in the memo of revision petition.

Record stands received.

Heard. Perused. .

Mr. Bazaz, argued that interim maintenance to the tune of Rs 550/- in terms of order dated 21.11.2001, stands granted in favour of respondent

No. 2 and paid to the respondent. The main petition u/s 488, Cr. P.C. came to be decided by the Court below in terms of the order dated

27.4.2004, which shall be referred hereinafter as impugned order. The monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month stands granted in

favour of respondent No. 2 from the date of application vide impugned order. The said impugned order is erroneous, illegal and improper.

Maintenance of Rs. 1,200/- granted vide impugned order should have been granted from the date of order and not from the date of application,

because the petitioner herein was paying the interim maintenance regularly. No other argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Considered.

It is profitable to reproduce Section 488(2), Cr. P.C. herein:

488(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance.

The provisions of Section 488, Cr. P.C. is having a social purpose. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 488, Cr. P.C., the purpose of

granting maintenance is just to save the petitioners from destitution, starvation and vagrancy. The intention of the legislation is to provided a

deserted spouse and child immediate speedy relief. The provisions are not penal in nature but just to achieve the said purpose mentioned

hereinabove. Basically, the provision is extended for ensuring that minimum needs of food, shelter, clothing are paid summarily to the wife/child in

order to save them from starvation.

The granting of interim maintenance is to save the petitioners from social evils and that is why the Apex Court has commanded to grant interim

maintenance to the petitioners at the very threshold stage. But granting of interim maintenance does not mean that the Court is debarred from

granting the maintenance from the date of application.

It is the statutory duty of the father to maintain his children and by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that while granting main petition for the

grant of maintenance the order of granting the same should be from the date of order. While going through the provisions of Section 488(2), Cr.

P.C., referred hereinabove, it is duty of the Magistrate to grant maintenance from the date of the application and in case maintenance is granted

from the date of decision, then Court should set out the reasons.

Thus the argument, advanced by Mr. Bazaz fails.

Perused the entire file and I am of the considered view that Court below has not committed any illegality. The maintenance granted by the Trial

Court is also just and not in any way excessive.

Viewed thus, the revision petition is dismissed. Send down the record.