Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Yousuf vs Smt. Arifa Bano on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 758 of 2022
Revisionist :- Mohammad Yousuf
Opposite Party :- Smt. Arifa Bano
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ausaf Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,1984 has been filed against the order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki in Criminal Misc. Case No. 63 of 2022 on an application under Section 125 CrPC preferred by respondent, wife of the revisionist
3. The learned Family Court has directed for recovery of Rs. 2,45,000/- pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2021 whereby the learned Family Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month maintenance to his wife, respondent.
4. Only submission, which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, is that vide the order dated 14.12.2021 the maintenance has been awarded from the date of application, however, it should be from the date of order. However, the impugned order of recovery has been passed, treating the order dated 14.12.2021 for payment of maintenance from the date of application.
5. I see no error having been committed by the learned Family Court in directing the payment of maintenance from the date of application as well as considering the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Rajnesh Vs. Neha) where it has been held that in all the cases maintenance will be awarded from the date of application. The final directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) read as under:
"127. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B ? I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
128. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.
128.2. (ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding.
128.3. (iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
129. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
130. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B ? III of the judgment. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the court concerned may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor(s) which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B ? IV above.
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance
132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21.
133. Before we part with this judgment, we note our appreciation of the valuable assistance provided by the learned Amici Curiae Ms Anitha Shenoy and Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocates in this case."
6. In view of the aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), this Court finds no illegality or error in the order impugned.
7. Hence, this revision, being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022MVS/-
