Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
KRISHNA JAIN PETITIONER V/S DHARAM RAJ JAIN, decided on Monday, October 14, 1991.
[ In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Cril.Revision 45 Of 1986. ] 14/10/1991
Judge(s) : P.C. PATHAK & S.K. CHAWLA
Advocate(s) : Rakesh Jain, Sohan Choudhary.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  State (through) Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Shri Kalyan Singh (former CM of UP) & Others,   19/04/2017.  

  Nara Chandrababu Naidu Versus The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another,   09/12/2016.  

  Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh & Another Versus Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh & Another,   28/10/2016.  

  Anuradha @ Shikha & Another Versus Sunil Kumar,   18/01/2016.  

  New India Sanitary Works Versus Khurshid Ahmed & Others,   22/12/2015.  

  Swami Gurudev Muni Chela Sant Sewa Dass JI Versus State & Another,   30/09/2015.  

  Nikhil Soni Versus Union of India & Others,   10/08/2015.  

  Dr. B.K. Naik & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Ministry of Lay and Parliamentary Affairs, rep. by its Secretary & Others,   10/07/2015.  

  The Vice Chairman, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District & Another Versus V. Padma & Others,   01/04/2015.  

  Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji Versus State of Karnataka & Others,   09/02/2015.  

  Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School Versus Labour Court, Bikaner & Another,   07/01/2015.  

  Dalip Kumar Jha & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others,   01/12/2014.  

  R.N. Agarwal Versus R.C. Bansal & Others,   14/10/2014.  

  A.C. Mahesh & Others Versus The State Of Karnataka & Others,   23/09/2014.  

  Bhuwan Mohan Singh Versus Meena & Others,   15/07/2014.  

  Amiya Saha (Majhi) & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others,   25/04/2014.  

  MRF Mazdoor Sangh Versus The Commissioner of Labour & Others,   03/10/2013.  

  S. Sivaguru & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Others,   07/05/2013.  

  M/s. German Trading Corporation, Rep. by its Proprietor, R. Velumani & Another Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department & Others,   30/04/2013.  

  Namit Sharma Versus Union of India,   13/09/2012.  

  Indian Council Of Agricultural Research & Another Versus Am Bilas Mehto & Others,   21/05/2012.  

  UOI & Others Versus Dharam Vir Singh & Others,   07/03/2012.  

  Research Foundn. for Science Versus UOI & Another,   29/02/2012.  

  D.P.S. Bhati Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh,   25/08/2011.  

  Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others,   08/04/2010.  

  T. Muralidhar Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Law Department, Secretariat , Hyderabad & Others,   08/02/2010.  

  Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited & Another Versus Reserve Bank of India & Others,   01/09/2009.  

  M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Limited, Sundur Taluk, Bellary Versus M/s. MSPL Limited, Hospet & Others,   05/06/2009.  

  M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. MSPL Limited & Others,   05/06/2009.  

  Siddharth Shrivastava Versus State Of M P,   11/11/2008.  

  Shail Kumari Devi & Another Versus Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak ,   28/07/2008.  

  M/s. Yashwitha Constructions (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director ,   01/05/2008.  

  Association for Protection of Democratic Rights & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others ,   18/01/2008.  

  Reliance Natural Resources Ltd Versus Reliance Industries Limited ,   15/10/2007.  

  M/s.Bhagwati Foundation & Others Versus Commissioner of MCD & Others,   31/10/2006.  

  M/s.Bhagwati Foundation & Others Versus Commissioner of MCD & Others,   31/10/2006.  

  Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Versus Dharam Chand Gupta,   03/08/2006.  

  Lahoty Brothers Ltd Versus Kalidas Ghosh,   30/06/2006.  

  Dharam Pal & Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others,   09/05/2006.  

  Mullah Ahmed Versus Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University & Another ,   23/03/2006.  

  B.S. Chopra Versus The Magmt. of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited & Another,   17/11/2005.  

  State of Gujarat & Others Versus Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & others ,   26/10/2005.  

  Nirmal Kumar Kharkia Versus State of West Bengal,   09/08/2005.  

  The State of West Bengal and another Versus Kesoram Industries Ltd. and others ,   15/01/2004.  

  Chandrakant Kantilal Shah Versus National Refinery (P.) Ltd.,   21/10/2003.  

  Krishna Mangal Singh Versus District Magistrate,   07/03/2003.  

  Phoolwanti Bai Versus Rewaram Pandav,   31/10/2001.  

  PIK Securities (P.) Ltd. Versus United Western Bank Ltd.,   24/04/2001.  

  Dasyam Elizabath Rani & Others Versus Dasyam Pradeep Kumar & Others ,   29/08/2000.  

  Satya Pal Versus State of U.P.,   17/09/1999.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1992 CrLJ 1028"  







    Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125(2) Section 465 -Cases Referred:Sampat Kumar v. Shanti Devi 1986 0 MPLJN 4Sunita Bhutani v. Satpal 1985 2 CrLJ 1007C. M. Manai v. Esther Pachikara 1983 1 DMC 409Makundum Ali v. Nargis Bano 1982 0 MLR 366(1983) 1 Crimes 590 : Cri R No. 405/82 D/- 10-11-82 (MP) (Overruled) 7 10C. M. Manai v. Esther Pachikara 1981 0 CrLJ 76S. A. Kaiser v. Noor Sahan 1980 0 CrLJ 611Jodhan Sahu v. Mst. Kulwantikher AIR 1948 Pat 285Hemibai v. Kundibai AIR 1940 Sind 222Rosa Cracker v. Emperor AIR 1928 Mad 899Abdul Rahim v. Mst. Amir Begum AIR 1926 Lah 532Savitri W/O Govind Singh Rawat Vs Govind Singh Rawat 1986-AllAC(Cri)-0-24Enamul Haque Vs Bibi Taimunissa 1967-AIR(PAT)-0-344Janamma Vs Kuttappa Panicker 1959-AIR(KER)-0-366Chittaranjan Das Vs State Of West Bengal 1963-Air(Sc)-0-1696Mohd.Ahmed Khan Vs Shah Bang Begum 1985-Curcrij-0-297     P.C. PATHAK J.(1.) This is reference made by one of us (Pathak-J) to Division Bench to answer the following questions.(i) whether recording of reasons is sine qua non for awarding maintenance from the date of application? (ii) If so whether the order must be modified making it payable from the date of order? (iii) Whether the 'date of order' in S. 125(2) means the date of order of the Revisional Court also?(2.) Smt. Krishnabai was married to non-applicant Dharamraj 16 years before the date of petition in accordance with Hindu Rites. She alleged that when Ku. Kalpana applicant No. 2 was in the womb the non-applicant snatched her ornaments and forced her to return to her parents. After the birth of the child she requested him to take her back but he gave no response. The applicant with her child continues to stay with her parents. On 4-6-1982 the applicant and her child filed petition u/ S. 125 Cr P. C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month to the mother and Rs. 200/- to the child from the date or application. The non-applicant filed his written statement on 30-9-1982. The trial Court allowed the application by order dated 24-4-1985 granting Rs. 200/- to the wife and Rs. 100/- to the child from the date of application.(3.) The non-applicant filed revision on 5-6-1985 before the Sessions Court. The Revisional Court held that Ku. Kalpana was not born from the cohabitation of the non-applicant but this does not affect his liability to maintain her as also his illegitimate child. There being no proof that the applicant was 'living' in adultery the maintenance could not be denied to her also. Thus both were held entitled to maintenance from the non-applicant. The Revisional Court further held that the normal rule is to award the maintenance from the date of order and if the maintenance is to be awarded from the date of application the Court must record reasons. Since no reasons were given by the Magistrate the award of the maintenance from the date of application was set aside. The trial Court's order was modified only to the extent that the maintenance to both was allowed from the date of order of the trial Court i.e. 24-4-1985.(4.) Aggrieved by the said order the non-applicant filed M. Cr. C. No. 1096/86 while the applicants filed revision challenging the findings as to the legitimacy of Ku. Kalpana so also that part of the order which set aside the grant from the date of application.(5.) Counsel for both parties were heard. Shri Surendra Singh Advocate appears as amicus curiae.(6.) The first question for decision is whether recording of reasons is sine qua non for awarding maintenance from the date of application. S. 125(2) of the Criminal P.C. 1974 runs as under:-Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. Even in the Criminal P.C. (Act No. V of 1898) the analogous provision S. 488(2) was the same as will be clear from the following:- Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance.(7.) In Lachhmani v. Ramu (Cr. Re. No. 405/82 decided on 10-11-1982.) Shri M. D. Bhatt J. held as under:-Sub-section (2) of Section 125 shows that such allowance has to be normally payable from the date of the order. In the alternative it could be equally ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. Reading the sub- section it clearly shows that the grant of allowance has normally to be from the date of the order alone; and in case this normal rule is not intended to be followed then the Court concerned may well grant the allowance from the date of the application; but such order should be backed by some reason to support the same (Emphasis added). Shri R. C. Shrivastava J. (Gwalior Bench) agreeing with view of Shri Bhatt J. in Mohd. Inayatuhlla Khan v Smt. Salma Bano M. Cr. C. No. 97/83 decided on 2/04/1985 held as under:- There can be no dispute on the point that ordinarily payment of maintenance under S. 125 of the Criminal P.C. has to be ordered not from the date of the application but from the date of the order. Thus according to both the learned Judges the normal rule is to award the maintenance from the date of order but if the award is from the date of application it should be supported by reasons.(8.) A contrary view of Shri U. L. Bhatt J. in C. M. Manai v. Esther Pachikara (1983) 1 DMC 409 : 1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 76 (Kerala) is that it is not necessary for the Court to record reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of petition. According to him the Court may omit to mention the date from which the maintenance order is to take effect. In such case the amount is payable from the date of order. The Court may specifically direct the order to take effect from the date of the petition.(9.) In Makundum Ali v. Nargis Bano (1983) 1 DMC 40 : (1983 Cri LJ 111) it was held that there ought to be compelling reasons before the wife is deprived of maintenance from the date of the application. Since the two Courts failed to assign any such reason the High Court set aside the order and allowed the maintenance from the date of application.(10.) A plain reading of sub-section (2) of P. 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 Note 4. Thus it is open to the Court to allow the maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application. The view in Lachhmani's case (supra) that the grant of allowance has 'normally' to be from the date of order and in case this 'normal rule' is not intended to be followed the grant from the date of the application should be backed by some reason is nothing but to strain the plain words of the sub-section. It is an attempt to insert something more in the sub-section which the legislature never intended. We are unable to read in the sub-section laying down any normal rule to award from the date of order or that the grant from the date of application an exception. Both the aforesaid decisions do not lay down correct law and must be overruled. It is the discretion of the Magistrate to direct payment either from the date of Application or from the date of order.(11.) Next question for decision is whether it is essential to record reasons if the allowance is made payable from the date of application which implies reasons need not be recorded if the same is allowed from the date of order. In in our opinion reasons have to be recorded in both the situations. S. 354(6) of the Code provides that every final order u/ S. 125 and certain other sections shall contain points for determination the decisions there on and the reasons for the decisions. In a petition u/ S. 125 the last point for determination is the date from which the maintenance ought to be granted. This depends on the pleadings in the case. The wife may claim the allowance from the date of application and the husband may deny it. In such a case the question has to be framed and decision on it has to be supported by reasons based on evidence led by both parties in support of their claims. Yet in other case the husband may omit to deny the wife's claim from the date of application. In such cases the question may be answered in wife's favour on the short ground that there is no denial in the written statement and this may satisfy the requirement of S. 354(6). It is well settled that a party cannot be allowed to set up altogether a new case in revision not set up altogether a new case in revision not set up in the pleadings. See Jodhan Sahu v. Mst. Kulwantikher 49 Cri LJ 323 (Pat): AIR 1948 Patna 285. Therefore where the husband fails to contest the claim from the date of application by raising specific objections in the written statement he has no right to urge that the allowance should have been from the date of order and not from the date of application. A Revisional Court should be slow to entertain any objection against the Magistrate's order allowing the maintenance from the date of application when the husband fails to contest the claim in the lower Court.(12.) Next question for decision is what is the effect of non-supply of reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application ? S. 465 of the Code provides that no omissions errors or irregularities in any proceeding will entail a reversal or alteration in appeal or in revision of any finding sentence or order unless such error omission of irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice. 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. Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 1696 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 534).(13.) I came across several cases in which the Revisional Courts following Lachhmani's case on a finding as to the absence of reasons to award the maintenance from the date of application modified the Magistrate's order mechanically directing payment only from the date of Magistrate's order. Such a short cut approach to dispose of the revision cannot be called judicious. The Revisional Court is obliged to scan the evidence on record to satisfy itself and supply the reasons in support of the Magistrate's order and the order impugned may not call for any interference. If the material on record is absent or insufficient it may resort to an order of remand with or without retaining seisin of the revision as the interest of justice and early disposal may demand. Patna High Court in 1971 Pat LJR 666 held that the section should be construed liberally and beneficially to the applicant while deciding the date from which the maintenance is to be granted. A blancket interference with the Magistrate's order in the manner aforesaid may result in grave injustice and untold miseries to the claimants who may have managed to survive during pendency of proceedings on loans or by sale of ornaments etc. or subscriptions from relations and sympathisers. In Makudum v. Nargis Bano 1982 Mat LJ 366 it was held that where the wife and the child had been neglected they were entitled to maintenance from the date of application. Following this decision in Sunita Bhutani v. Satpal 1985(2) Crimes 1007 the modification by the Additional Sessions Judge without assigning reason directing payment from the date of order was held to be unwarranted and the order of the Magistrate granting-maintenance from the date of application was restored.(14.) The claimants have now been relieved by the decisions of Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945 : (1985 Cri LJ 875) and Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat AIR 1986 SC 984 : (1986 Cri LJ 4 1) laying down that the Magistrate can grant interim maintenance. In the absence of any such order it is essential for the magistrate to enquire the source from which the wife maintained herself and her child if any the conduct of parties during the proceedings and other relevant matter so as to properly decide the date from which the maintenance may be payable. Where the wife maintained herself and children by selling ornaments and collecting funds from the relations the Court awarded maintenance from the date of application. S. A. Kaiser v. Noor Sahan 1980 Cri LJ 611 (Cal).(15.) Next question for decision is whether the 'date of order' in sub-sec. (2) of S. 125 could also be the date of revisional order ? It is settled by catena of cases that maintenance can be granted either from the date of order of the Magistrate or from the date of application before him. The Magistrate has no discretion to allow it from a third date. There is also no provision for awarding maintenance prior to the date of application. Rosa Cracker v. Emperor AIR 1928 Mad 899 Abdul Rahim v. Mst. Amir Begum AIR 1926 Lah 532: (27 Cri LJ 610) and Enamul Haque v. Bibi Taimnissa AIR 1967 Pat 344 : (1967 Cri LJ 1364). Thus the Court cannot award maintenance from the date of child's birth : Janamma v. Kuthappa Panicker AIR 1959 Ker 366 : (1959 Cri LJ 1328).(16.) In Gafoor Ahmed v. Amnabi Cr. R. No. 22 of 1983 (Indore) decided on 7-8-1986 Y.D. Gyani J. held as under (at page 392 (of '86 DMC)):-So far as the question of making the order retrospective the learned Sessions Judge in his order has not indicated any reason for doing so. No doubt it is within the discretion of the Court making the order of maintenance to award a sum either from the date of application or from the date on which the order is passed. In such matters it is expected of the Revisional Court to take realistic view of the matter as the proceeding at times consume considerable time before an order is passed accumulation of arrears of maintenance allowance in case the order is made retrospective in effect at times results in great deal of hardship. To avoid this the Court should consider awarding of interim maintenance which has now been held to be awardable by the Supreme Court if such interim maintenance is not asked for and awarded at least the Revisional Court should in the event of making the order retrospective in effect record reasons for doing so lest it results in not merely a great deal of hardship to the husband but also deprives forums of granting the grounds or reasons on the basis of which a retrospective maintenance order is passed. As in this case no reasons are indicated the ends of justice would sufficiently be met if the order is made effective from the date it was made by the learned Sessions judge.(17.) In the aforesaid case (Gafoor Ahmed's case) the trial Court had dismissed the application u/S. 125. The Revisional Court granted maintenance from the date of application. In order to avoid hardship to the husband due to accumulated arrears Gyani J. held that reasons must be recorded for granting maintenance from the date of application. Since no reasons were given by the revisional Court he directed the maintenance to be payable from the date of Revisional Court's order. Thus he carved out a third date not stipulated in S. 125(2). This was beyond the scope of S. 125(2).(18.) With utmost respect to Gyani J. we are of the opinion that accumulation of large arrears is hardly a ground to deny the wife if she makes out a case for grant of maintenance from the date of application. We may refer to 1965 Pun LJ 170 : (1965) 67 Punjab Law Reporter 263 wherein it was held (at page 268 (of 65 Pun LR)) :- The fact that arrears have accumulated is no justification for writing them off. The argument that the petitioner- wife had somehow been managing to earn some amount to make her both ends meet during the interval is inconclusive. That the husband has all these years been neglecting the wife and has also been persisting in denying his marriage with her and their living together in his efforts to avoid his liability is also not irrelevant and may well be kept in view. It is not a matter of favour to the petitioner-wife nor is she begging for any charity. It is her right which is being enforced by the Court and indulgence to the respondent husband in this respect can only be at the cost of the petitioner wife's right.In Hemibai v. Kundibai AIR 1940 Sind 222 the opposite party was found to have behaved badly so as not to deserve any sympathy or consideration it was held that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of application.(19.) In view of the foregoing discussion we hold that the 'date of order' in S. 125(2) means the date of order of the Magistrate and not the date of revisional order. Gafoor Ahmed's case so far it directs payment of allowance from the date of order of the revisional Court is not good law. The answers to the questions referred are:-(i) Recording of reasons is essential in either case namely when the maintenance is granted from the date of application or from the date of order. (ii) In the absence of reasons it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of order. (iii) The date of order in S. 125(2) means the date of Magistrate's order and not the revisional order. The record be placed before the single Judge for disposal of the revisions.Order accordingly.