Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kalpna Awasthi @ Lalita ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 7 September, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 771 of 2021
Revisionist :- Smt. Kalpna Awasthi @ Lalita Awasthi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Akashdeep Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.
2. This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by the wife, seeking enhancement of maintenance amount, which has been awarded @ Rs.3,000/- per month vide order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-4, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.874 of 2009, under Section 125 CrPC filed by the revisionist.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the husband of the revisionist is engaged in supplying medicines as well as in property dealing. Looking at status and income of the husband, the amount of maintenance appears to be very meager. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have awarded the maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. The learned counsel for the revisionist places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court 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."
4. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and the laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra), the amount of maintenance is increased from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of order and, amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is to be paid from the date of application.
5. With the aforesaid directions, this revision stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.9.2022
MVS/-
