Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Renu Yadav vs Dharmendra Kumar Yadav on 4 March, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4928 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RENU YADAV W/O SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE GRAM CHAMROLI POST SADUPUR DISTRICT
FIROJABAD (U.P.) CURRENT ADD. HOUSE NO. 14/13
KSHIPRA VIHAR COLONY NEW INDIRA NAGAR,
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA KEHARWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
DHARMENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI
GIRIRAJSINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AARAKSHAK M.P. POLICE GRAM
CHAROLI POST SADUPUR DISTRICT FIROJABAD
CURRENT ADD. POLICE LINES DEWAS ROAD. UJJAIN
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4)
of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. being
aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2022, passed by learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Ujjain in MJCR No.124/2021, whereby
the learned Family Court has allowed the application filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C by awarding maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to respondent from the date of
order i.e. 20.09.2022.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent. On early occasion i.e.
21.12.2023, no one was appeared for the respondent, hence, in absence of
respondent, this matter is going to be adjudicated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial
Court has awarded the maintenance to the respondent from the date of order
whereas it should be from the date of filing of the application. Hence, he prays
for grant of maintenance from the date of filing of application.
4. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rajnesh vs. Neha [2020 Law Suit (SC) 687]. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are worth to quote here :-
"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
dependant spouse hampers 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 concerned Court.
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 concerned Court. 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."
5. Having heard the submissions placed by counsel for the petitioner,
matter has been considered, it is evident that learned trial Court while deciding
the case has not mentioned any reason as to why, the impugned order was
passed from the date of order.
6. In view of the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and
also law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, present revision is allowed.
7. Respondent is directed to pay the maintenance to the petitioner Rs.
7,000/- per month regularly from the date of filing of application under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. i.e. 27.03.2021.
8. Accordingly, with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
