Sri. Satish S/O. Subbayya ... vs Smt. Nagaveni Alias Sushma W/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4050 Kant

                                   1




              IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
                      DHARWAD B ENCH

        DATED THIS THE 9 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                                BEFORE

             THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE P.N.DESAI

                 CRL.RP.NO.100091 OF 2022

BETWEEN

SRI. SATISH S/O. SU BB AYYA GANGAMANI
AGE. 54 YEARS, O CC. SERVICE
R/O. KAJUBAG, KARWAR
DIST . UTT ARA KANNADA
                                                     ...PETITIONER

(B Y SRI.S G KADADAKAT TI, ADVOCAT E)

AN D

SMT. NAGAVENI ALIAS SU SHMA
W/O SATISH GANGAMANI
AGE. 48 YEARS, O CC. HOU SEHOLD
R/O.C/O. SRI.N.G.MALKOD
H.NO.286/A, TOWNSHIP
DANDELI, DIST. U .K-5813 25.
                                                   ...RESPONDENT

       THIS    CRIMINA L        REVIS ION   PET IT ION   IS   F ILED
U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.10. 2021
PASSED B Y THE I ADDIT IONAL DIST RICT AND SESS IO NS
JUDGE, U .K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, IN CRIMINAL
REVIS ION     PET IT ION    NO.5128/201 7      AND    THE     ORDER
DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED B Y THE CIVIL JU DGE AND
JMFC,     DANDELI          IN      CRIMINA L     MISCELLANEO US
NO.251/ 2014 BY ALLOW ING TH IS CRIMINAL R EV IS ION
PET ITION.
                                 2




       THIS PET ITION CO MING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, T HE COU RT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the p etitioner at

the stag e of ad mission itself.

2. This petition is filed seeking to q uash the ord er

dated 12.10.2021 passed by I Addl. District Jud ge,

Uttara Kannada, Karwar sitting at Sirsi in CRP

No.5128/2017 which has confirmed the ord er d ated

06.10.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.251/2014 passed by Civil

Judge, JMFC., Dandeli in Crl.Misc.No.251/2014.

3. The p etitioner has contended that p etitioner

and respondent's are husb and and wife. Their

marriage was solemnized on 04.05.1997. There was

a quarrel between themselves. Then wife has filed

petition in Crl.Misc.No.119/1999 for maintenance.

The said maintenance p etition came to b e allowed.

Then the respondent preferred revision before

District and Sessions Judg e, Karwar and the same

came to be dismissed and petition filed by the wife

was allowed and maintenance was enhanced.

Subsequently the petition for enhancement was filed

i.e. last petition in Crl.Misc.No.251/2014 is allowed

by Civil Judge, JMFC by order d ated 06.10.2017, by

enhancing the same at Rs.7,000/- per month and

directed husband to pay the same from the date of

order. The revision is filed by respondent-wife was

allowed in p art with no d escription to p ay the

maintenance from the date of petition. Hence, this

petition is filed. Only with limited challeng e, the

ord ering maintenance "from the d ate of p etition not

from the d ate of order"

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.G.Kad ad akatte for

petitioner at the stag e of ad mission itself. The

learned sessions judge p assed an order d irecting to

pay monthly maintenance from 20.09.2014 i.e. from

the d ate of petition. Therefore, learned counsel

arg ued that such ord er is without any basis and only

on this g round , p etitioner is before this Court.

5. Perused the order p assed b y Civil Judge and

JMFC and learned Sessions judge.

6. Whether maintenance is to be paid from the

date of petition or from the date of order is no more

res-intig ra, in view of p ronouncement by the Hon'ble

Sup reme Court in the case of R ajnesh Vs. Neha

and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324,

wherein the Hon'ble Sup reme Court after discussing

divergent judgments of different Courts held at p ara

No.109 as under:

"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the

divergent views of different Hig h Courts on

the d ate from which maintenance must be

award ed. Even though a judicial discretion

is conferred upon the Court to grant

maintenance either from the date of

application or from the d ate of the ord er in

Section 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be

app ropriate to grant maintenance from the

date of application in all cases, including

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the p ractical

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 award ed from the d ate of

the application."

and gave a direction under article 142 of

Constitution of India, at p ara 127d 131, it is held as

und er:

"131. We make it clear that maintenance

in all cases will be awarded from the d ate

of filing the application for maintenance,

as held in part B-IV above."

7. Therefore, in view of p rincip les stated by the

Hon'b le Sup reme Court, in Rajanesh's case (sup ra)

the ord er passed by the learned I Addl. District

Judge and Sessions Judge, Karwar in Criminal

revision petition modifying the date of maintenance

from the 'date of order' to the 'd ate of p etition'

cannot be said as either illegal, erroneous or

incorrect so as to exercise revision power of this

Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the

petition being devoid of merit is liab le to be

dismissed at the stag e of admission.

Accordingly, petition is d ismissed .

Sd/-

JUDGE Hmb/-