Bindu Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2012 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bindu Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Rev. No.583 of 2022
                          ....
Bindu Kumari, aged about 34 years, wife of Santosh Kumar
Prasad @ Santosh Prasad, resident of C/O Sri Chhedilal, Railway
Traffic Colony, P.O. Tata Nagar, P.S. Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum
                                                 ......Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Santosh Kumar Prasad @ Santosh Prasad, son of Sri Kali
   Charan Prasad, resident of Sanjay Path, Subhas Colony, Dimna
   Road, P.O. Mango, P.S. Mango(Ulidih), Town Jamshedpur,
   District East Singhbhum
                                                 ......Opp. Parties
                       -----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                       -----
For the Petitioner        : Mr. Samir Kr. Lall, Advocate
For the State             : Mrs. Vandana. Bharti, A.P.P
For the O.P. No.2         : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate
                     ......
              ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT

Order No.09/27.01.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P as well as learned Opposite Party No.2 are present.

2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for modification of the order dated 29.01.2022 passed by Sri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, in O.M. Case No.188 of 2018, by which the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the date of order instead of date of filing application and also prayed for enhancement of maintenance amount.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for both the parties submitted that this case can be disposed of in the light of judgement rendered in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2SCC 324. The relationship between both the sides is admitted who are the wife and the husband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage does not press on the quantum of maintenance rather the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is pressing this Criminal Revision Application on the grant of maintenance amount from the date of filing of application.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner that she is not pressing quantum of maintenance amount without prejudice to her right to agitate the same before the learned Court below at any appropriate stage.

6. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has fairly submitted that the case of Rajnish Vs. Neha and Anr. is applicable and this case can be disposed of in the said order and the maintenance amount, if paid any, may be adjusted.

7. It appears from the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2022 passed by the learned Court below that the learned Court below has directed the respondent-opposite Party No.2 to pay Rs.6000/- (Rs. Six thousand) per month to his wife (i.e. the petitioner) Bindu Kumari from the date of filing of the petition.

Thereafter, the learned Court below has further directed that the Respondent-O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.8000/- (Rs. Eight thousand) per month from the date of the order (i.e. the Judgement) and the learned Court below has further directed the respondent-O.P No.2 to pay Rs. 2000/- in lump sum to the petitioner as litigation cost.

However, the learned Court has further clarified that any amount paid by the respondent-opposite party to the petitioner towards maintenance during pendency of proceeding before the learned Court below shall be adjusted against the maintenance

award awarded.

8. It has been held in the case of Rajnish Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2SCC 324 at Paragraphs 109 to 113 as follows:-

"Paragraph 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) Cr.P.C, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 the application.

Paragraph 110:- In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application.

Paragraph 111:- The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that

maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the court concerned.

Paragraph-112:- In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.PC. The Court held :

(SCC p. 196, para 13) "13.3. ... purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society.

The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society."

(emphasis supplied) Paragraph 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."

9. It is well settled from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the maintenance amount will be payable by the husband to the wife from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Court below.

10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is well settled that the maintenance amount has to granted

to the wife or the child from the date of filing of application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below.

11. Under the circumstances, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of with the direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner from the date of filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Court below (as the date has not been mentioned in the impugned judgment and also in this Criminal Revision No.583 of 2022) and the amount paid if any by the Opposite party No.2 to the petitioner from the date of filing of application shall be adjusted at the time of making final calculation.

12. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to regularly pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner and the maintenance amount earlier paid by the Opposite Party No.2 to the petitioner will be adjusted and both the sides will be at liberty to show calculation chart regarding the amount received to each other before the learned Court below also.

13. The Opposite party no.2 is directed to make payment of the arrears to the petitioner within six months in equal installments from the receipt of the order of copy of this order.

14. Thus, this Criminal Revision No.583 of 2022 is allowed in part and stands disposed of and judgment dated 29.01.2022 passed in O.M. Case No.188 of 2018 by Sri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur stands modified accordingly.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-