The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a bare reading of the section 125(2) CrPC allows the discretion of the deciding court to grant the maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application. Furthermore, when once it found that the wife and the child are unable to maintain themselves and the husband is capable of maintaining himself and having sufficient means, refused or neglected to pay maintenance, ordering payment of maintenance from the date of petition filed is what normally sounds correct.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Domestic violence was filed under section 12 seeking relief under sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thereafter, the criminal miscellaneous Petition was filed in section 23 of the Act, 2005 seeking various interim measures. Then, the trial court directed the Respondent to pay 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- P.M respectively to the 1st and 2nd towards monthly maintenance from the date of filing the Petition. Against the said order the appeal was preferred by the husband before the learned session judge and the appeal was partly allowed. The learned appellate court modified the trial court’s order only with reference to the date from which the awarded maintenance amounts were to be paid. Aggrieved by this, the present revision was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the modification done by the learned appellate court was not in consonance with the law laid down in the Rajnesh V. Neha.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that a bare reading of section 125(2) CrPC allows the discretion of the deciding court to grant the maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application and that discretion normally has to be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances as were brought on record by the parties.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Rajnesh V. Neha.
The court noted that ordering the payment of maintenance from the date the petition was filed makes sense usually, especially if it is discovered that the husband, who has sufficient means to support himself, is capable of supporting himself and the child but has either refused or neglected to pay maintenance.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the order passed by the learned appellate court requires interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the revision.
Case Title: Palaparthi Shebha and Others V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V R K Krupa Sagar
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1115/2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN
Advocate for the Respondent: SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
