Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Yadav vs Asha on 2 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 260 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
LOKENDRA YADAV S/O RAMLAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUEST TEACHER R/O
VILLAGE PALSUD POST PIPLYA TEHSIL MAHESHWAR
DISTT. KHAROGNE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BHAGWAN RAJ PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ASHA D/O RAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN R/O VILLAGE
PALSUD POST PIPLYA TEHSIL MAHESHWAR
DISTT. KHARGONE AT PRESENT DHAR DISTT.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIRAJ S/O LOKENDRA MINOR THROUGH
MOTHER AND GUARDIAN ASHA D/O RAMSINGH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
KNOWN VILLAGE PALSUD, POST PIPLIYA, TEH.
MAHESHWAR, DIST. KHARGONE AT PRESENT
R/O DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VISHAKHA D/O LOKENDRA MINOR THROUGH
MOTHER AND GUARDIAN ASHA D/O RMSINGH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
KNOWN VILLAGE PALSUD, POST PIPLYA, TEH.
MAHESHWAR DIST. KHARGONE, AT PRESENT
D/O DHAR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is Criminal Revision u/S.19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read
with Sec.397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2023
passed by Family court, Dhar in Case No.MJCR 251/2023 whereby the
application filed u/S.127 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.
2. The respondents have filed an application u/S.125 of Cr.P.C for
maintenance against the applicant. The Court, after evaluation of evidence of
both the parties directed the applicant to pay Rs.2000/- each to the respondent
No.2 and 3 minor children from the date of application i.e. from 17.8.2006.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed Cr.Revision No.3845/2023
before this Court. In the said revision, the applicant confined challenge to the
said order only in respect of award of maintenance from the date of application
and did not challenge the award of maintenance. Considering the aforesaid
submissions and limited prayer of the applicant, the court disposed off the said
revision petition with a direction to consider afresh the request of applicant after
hearing both the parties if he files an application before the court in this regard.
Thereafter the court has passed the fresh impugned order dated 22.12.2023 and
rejected the prayer of the applicant to award the maintenance from the date of
order instead of from the date of application.
3. Counsel for applicant submits that the respondents were not entitled
for maintenance because the delay was on the part of the respondents and,
therefore, court ought to have awarded the maintenance from the date of order
and not from the date of application. He placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC
4. After hearing learned counsel for applicant and upon perusal of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court, I do not find any illegality in the impugned
order. In the case of Rajnesh (supra) it has been held that the maintenance
u/S.125 Cr.P.C be granted from the date of application. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
"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 the application.
110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan
Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak,
(2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , 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 [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6
SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri)
200] , 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.
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."
5. I further do not find any merit in the contention of the applicant that
since the respondents were prosecuting the remedies before this court and,
therefore, the delay was caused on her part and, therefore, the maintenance
could not have been awarded from the date of application. Prosecuting the
statutory remedies by the respondents would not constitute delay in the trial.
The proceedings were proceeded ex-parte against the respondents and because
she did not appear on the various dates. He produced copy of the order dated
14.7.2023 passed in Cr.Revision No.1276/2021. Upon perusal of the said
order, it appears that the trial court proceeded against the respondents on ex-
parte and an application u/O.9 Rule 9 read with Sec.151 of CPC was
dismissed. The respondents filed fresh Revision No.1276/2021 and this court
allowed the said petitioner and the order impugned was set aside. The matter
was remitted back to the Family Court.
6. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra), I
do not find any case for interference. The revision is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
