Smt. Phoolwanti Bai vs Rewaram Pandav

S.S. Saraf, J.—This petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been directed for quashing the order dated 31.3.2001 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni in Criminal Revision No. 87/2000 modifying the order dated 16.6.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waraseoni in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3/1995 on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C.

On an application filed by the petitioner against the respondent for grant of maintenance allowance u/s 125, Cr. P.C, the learned Magistrate by Murder dated 16.6.2000 directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance allowance from the date of application. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the respondent filed a revision before the Court of Sessions. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni by the impugned order dated 31.3.2001 reduced the amount of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month. It has also been ordered by the learned revisional Judge that the said amount be paid not from the date of the application but from the date of order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

The learned Magistrate has discussed the facts and circumstances and looking to the totality of circumstances had found that an amount of Rs. 500/- per month is proper amount to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner as maintenance allowance. The learned Judge reduced the amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month on the ground that the salary of the respondent is Rs. 3,800/- per month and he has to maintain three members of the family besides himself. Even on that ground if the units are calculated, there does not appear to be any justification to reduce the amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month.

So far as the date of payment of the allowance is concerned, the learned Judge has found that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason to direct the payment of the allowance from the date of application. The learned Judge has placed his reliance on the decision of this Court in 1985 M.P. 365. The decision in 1985 M.P. 365 has been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna v. Dharam Raj 1991 MPLJ 451. This Court in Krishna''s case (supra), has held as under :

"10. Aplain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 125 shows that the allowance is payable from the date of order where the Court omits to specify the date from which it is payable. The Court has power to make it payable, from the date of application. See Sampat Kumar v. Shanti Devi 1986 MPLJ 4. Thus, it is open to the Court to allow the maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application."

It has also been held by this Court in Krishna''s case (supra), that mere technicalities in respect of matter which are not vital or important or significant in a trial should not be allowed to frustrate the ends of justice, The non-mention of detailed reasons regarding the payment of maintenance allowance from the date of application is, therefore, not fatel. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that there is no contribution of the petitioner in the delay in disposal of the petition. The learned Magistrate has, therefore, properly exercised his discretion while directing the payment of allowance from the date of application. The Revisional Court was not justified to substitute its own discretion upon the discretion of the Trial Court.

It is well settled that the Revisional Court has limited jurisdiction in deciding the matter in controversy. The order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity. The learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion judiciously. Under the circumstances there was no valid ground for the Revisional Court to reduce the maintenance allowance and to change the date of payment of the said allowance.

For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni is quashed while the order dated 16.6.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waraseoni is restored.