Allahabad High Court
Savita Rai And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16437
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2192 of 2025
Applicant :- Savita Rai And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Singh,Ajay Singh,Sakshi Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005") was preferred by the applicants against opposite party nos. 2 to 4. Opposite party no. 2 is the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of applicant no. 2, while opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of applicant no. 1.
3. In the said complaint it was stated that the applicant no. 1 was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the private opposite parties, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and started living with her parents. A first information report under Section 498A I.P.C. was lodged on 23.05.2025 at Police Station - Vikas Nagar, District - Lucknow. In the application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005, prayer was made for grant of maintenance with further prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and as interim relief prayer was made that Rs.1,00,000/- may be granted as ex-parte interim maintenance.
4. It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that considering the application for interim relief preferred under Section 23 of the Act, 2005, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Lucknow has passed order dated 06.02.2025, granting interim maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month. He has considered the fact that applicants were subjected to domestic violence and due to said violence, the applicants were turned out of their matrimonial house and were forced to live at the house their parents alongwith her daughter i.e. applicant no. 2. It seems that another application for interim relief was filed seeking interim maintenance of Rs.70,000/-, it was considered that opposite party no. 2 is working on the post of Assistant Commissioner, GST and is earning Rs.62546/- per month and accordingly interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month has been granted.
5. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the applicants is that the amount of maintenance should be granted from the date of filing of application, which in the present case is 03.08.2023. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Apex Court in para 96 onwards has observed that grant of maintenance should be from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other similar enactment. Accordingly, it was submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as maintenance has been granted to the applicants from the date of passing of the said order.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the application. He has submitted that firstly, that from bare perusal of Section 12 would indicate that it is only after grant of compensation or damages and it is in this regard it is noticed that the applicants had filed application under Section 12 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and interim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, there was no prayer made by the applicants either in the application filed under Section 12 or subsequent interim relief application filed during the proceedings which has been considered by the Court below for grant of maintenance, each month.
7. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra) undisputedly, maintenance has to be granted from the date of filing of the application, but the said order would be passed at the final stage while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and not at the interim stage. It was further stated that there is no direction of the Apex Court that even the interim maintenance should be granted from the date of filing of the application,and accordingly, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, prays for dismissal of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court, is as to whether the trial Court had erred in grant of interim maintenance from the date of passing of the order, rather than granting the same from the date of filing of the application for maintenance.
10. This Court from the perusal of application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act as well as application for interim relief preferred by the applicants finds that during the said proceedings, prayer was made only for grant of compensation and there was no prayer for grant of maintenance. Accordingly, without commenting upon the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court for grant of Rs.8000/- per month, it is noticed that such aspect was considered by the Apex Court in the case ofRajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra). The relevant portion of theApex Court's observations are quoted herein below :-
"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of application."
11. Perusal of aforesaid judgment would indicate that undisputedly while passing final orders for maintenance, the trial Court has to give benefit of the same from the date of filing of application, but, there is no such direction that interim maintenance also should be granted from the date of filing of application.
12. We are conscious of the fact that interim orders are passed looking into the urgency and other pleadings made in the application for interim relief at the stage of hearing, the opposite party will be issued notices. It is only after hearing the opposite parties, in such cases, where the Court proceeds to finally dispose of the application and final orders of maintenance are passed, then only the Courts are oblized to pass order for maintenance from the date of filing of such application.
13. Even otherwise, grant of interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application would amount to finally allowing the application for grant of maintenance which certainly could not be done at the interim stage.
14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any infirmity in granting maintenance from the date of application and no error has been committed by the trial Court while passing such order.
15. Accordingly, the present application being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.3.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
