Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar vs Smt. Urmila on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4848/2022
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Bapunagar Colony Jalore Tehsil And Dist. Jalore Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Urmila W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Jalore At Present R/o At Badganv Tehsil
Shivganj Dist. Sirohi Raj.
2. Himanshu S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 7 Years,
R/o Jalore At Present R/o At Badganv Tehsil Shivganj Dist.
Sirohi Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. L. Thakur
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/08/2022
1. By way of the present petition the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act Cases, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional Court')
in a revision petition filed by the petitioner whereby the amount of
maintenance (Rs.10,000/- per month) has been affirmed,
however, the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Shivganj, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred
to as the 'trial Court') has been modified and the maintenance has
been ordered to be paid from the date of application i.e.
08.11.2016.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4848/2022]
2. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is not disputing the amount of monthly maintenance
(Rs.6000/- to the wife and Rs.4000/- to the son - Himanshu),
however, his concern is with the stipulation according to which the
petitioner is required to pay the amount from the date of
application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
is paying interim maintenance from the date of application and the
final maintenance amount, which has been determined by the trial
Court vide order dated 03.01.2022 should be from the date of
order and not from the date of the application.
4. He argued that the Revisional Court has erred in making the
final amount of maintenance applicable from the date of
application.
5. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Madan lal Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi reported in 2018 (1) WLC
(Raj.) UC 666 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Curt in the case
of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 2
SCC (Cri.) 785 and argued that the Revisional Court was required
to record reasons if it wanted to make the maintenance amount
payable from the date of application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. A simple look at the provisions of Section 125 of the Code
makes it abundantly clear that the maintenance can be ordered to
be paid from the date of application.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Revisional Court has not recorded any reasons for doing the same
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4848/2022]
is not tenable in view of the findings recorded by the learned
Revisional Court in paras No.9 and 10 of the order.
9. Not only as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Code,
even in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC
324 the amount of interim maintenance is required to be paid
from the date of application.
10. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned
passed by the learned Revisional Court.
11. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Lal
Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi (supra) is concerned, firstly the same was
passed prior to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh (supra) and secondly the said judgment has been passed
in peculiar facts of the case, which is evident from the paras No.8
and 9 of the judgment.
12. Having regard to the fact that a substantial amount of
arrears will be required to be paid by the petitioner pursuant to
the impugned order of Revisional Court, the petitioner is allowed
to deposit the arrears of maintenance in the Revisional Court by
31.12.2022.
13. The petition is, otherwise dismissed.
14. Stay application too stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
196-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
