Allahabad High Court
Lalmani Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2015
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 23
AFR
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12523 of 2015
Applicant :- Lalmani Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Yashpal, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Raj Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. By the judgment dated 15.12.2014, Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi had decided the misc. case no. 127/1998 (Lalmani Devi v. Nanhku Ram) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Bhelupur, Varanasi. By this judgment the court had partially allowed the application of maintenance of the applicant against her husband and directed OP/ husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. By present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant Lalmani Devi had prayed that said judgment be modified and amount of quantum of maintenance be enhanced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month and that too from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. Inspite of notice of service, none appeared from the side of the opposite party. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who contended that Rs. 2000/- per month is too meager amount which is insufficient to maintain the applicant, therefore it should be enhanced. He also contended that without any sufficient reason, lower court had passed the order directing the maintenance to be paid from the date of order in spite of date of filing of application.
3. In the light of the argument advanced I have perused the records and relevant legal provisions. The impugned order of Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has been passed in summary proceedings of 125 Cr.P.C which is not appellable order. If any illegality, impropriety or irregularity is found in such order, it may be scrutinized through exercise of revisional jurisdiction. By the impugned order the court below had allowed the application of applicant for maintenance. Such order is for securing the ends of justice to the applicant and there is nothing in it that may be treated as abuse of process of court.
4. Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. reads that "such allowance shall be payable from the date of order or if so ordered, from the date of application of maintenance." This provisions makes it clear that in ordinary course general rule is that the order of maintenance amount should be payable from the date of order and not from the retrospective effect, unless there is specific reason that are assigned in the order. Therefore, there appears no error, irregularity, illegality in the impugned order that may be treated as abuse of process of court or threatening the ends of justice.
5. The inherent power of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised for giving effect to any order under Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power is not be exercised like powers of appellate court by scrutinizing the merits of adduced evidences and justification of findings of fact. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that court below had applied its judicial mind, appreciated the evidences available before it and thereafter passed the impugned order of maintenance. The amount of maintenance assessed and awarded by the court below is on the basis of facts, evidences and their appreciation. There appears no illegality or irregularity in it. It is not an appeal wherein scrutiny of evidences is possible. Neither such inherent power is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible.
6. For the reasons discussed above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 09.10.2015
Sanjeev
