Rajkishor Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10826 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17269 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajkishor Tiwari
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

The applicant is husband of opposite party No.2 and father of opposite party No.3 and is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 whereby the application for interim maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed with a direction for payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to his wife and Rs. 2,000/- to his minor daughter.

Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the interim maintenance, however, it ought to be from the date of order and not from the date of filing of the application i.e. October, 2019.

Learned counsel has also pointed out that the opposite party No.2 is a working lady, therefore, she is not entitled for the interim maintenance.

This Court is dealing with the order of interim maintenance which is of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 3000/- to wife and Rs. 2,000/- to his minor daughter). The submission whether the opposite party No.2 is a working lady or not will be decided after the evidence is led before the learned trial Court in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, this Court cannot enter into the said arena.

So far as other submission that the order of interim maintenance ought to be from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of application is concerned, it is also unsustainable as the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 has specifically held that the order shall be from the date of filing of the application. For reference, relevant para of the judgment (supra) is mentioned hereinafter :-

"113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant."

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that 2 months period was granted by the learned trial Court for payment of arrears. However, due to financial constraints, he failed to comply the direction and seeks six months for payment of arrears in six installments.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the prayer made in this application, therefore, the prayer stands rejected.

However, considering the last submission about the extension of time for payment of arrears, it is extended for a period of four months from today in easy four installments.

The application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

Nirmal Sinha