JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS &ANR. versus HIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS &ANR.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 19-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 574 
JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS &ANR. 
v. 
HIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2435 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2014 
[J. CHELAMESWAR ANDS.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss. 125 and 354(6) 
C - Grant of maintenance - Effective date - Held: s. 125 
enables the court to grant maintenance from the date of the 
order or from the date of the application - Said final order 
must contain reasons for such decision- On facts, High Court 
granted maintenance to wife from the date of order, without 
D giving any reason for not granting maintenance from the date 
of application - Circumstances justified grant of maintenance 
with effect from the date of application for maintenance - Thus, 
order passed by the High Court set aside. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Section 125 Cr.P.C. impliedly requires the 
Court to consider making the order for maintenance 
effective from either of the two dates, the date of the order 
or from the date of the application, having regard to the 
F relevant facts. Every final order uls.125 [and other 
sections referred to in sub-section (c) of Section 354] 
must contain points for determination, the decision 
thereon and the reasons for such decision. On facts, the 
High Court did not give any reason for not granting 
G maintenance from the date of the application. The 
circumstances eminently justified grant of maintenance 
with effect from the date of the application. The order of 
the High Court is set aside andthe respondent is directed 
to pay the amount of maintenance found payable from 
H 
574 
JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS v. HIRENBHAI 
575 
RAMESHCHANDRAVYAS 
the date of the application for maintenance. [Paras 6, 7, A 
9][578-F-H; 579-G-H; 580-A-B] 
Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak 
(2008) 9 SCC 632: 2008 (11) SCR 386-referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (11) SCR 386 
referred to 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
B 
Appeal No. 2435 of 2014. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28-10-2010 of the 
High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Criminal Revision No. 
378 of 2009. 
l.C. Sharma, Daya Krishan Sharma, Hemant Mudgil, D 
Advs. for the Appellants. 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. This appeal has been preferred by a wife and a minor 
daughter. The Family Court directed payment of interim 
maintenance to wife and minor daughter@ Rs. 6,000/- per 
month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
F 
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). Interim 
maintenance was also ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'H.M. Act') 
@ 3,000/- per month payable to both. Eventually, the Family 
Court disposed the maintenance proceedings finally by the 
G 
Order dated 31.01.2009. By this Order the Family Court 
granted maintenance in favour of daughter@ Rs. 5,000/- per 
month from the date of judgment. The Family Court, however, 
took the view that the appellant-wife would not be entitled to 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A receive any amount more than the interim maintenance which 
she is receiving under the H.M.Act. 
3. On the Appellant's application for maintenance made 
for herself and her children, the Family Court granted 
B maintenance in the sum of Rs 5,000/- only to her daughter under 
Section 125 Cr.P.C. The son was living with the father who 
was maintaining him and was therefore not granted 
maintenance. The main ground for denying maintenance to 
the Appellant was that she was found to have been working 
c before her marriage and the Family Court was of the view that 
she could earn her living even now after the separation and 
therefore she was denied maintenance. This view did not find 
favour with the High Court, which noted that the Appellant had 
stopped working after her marriage and had given birth to two 
o children. She had been only looking after the family and had 
therefore stopped working. The High Court thus reversed the 
Order of the Family Court and granted maintenance in the sum 
of Rs. 5,000/-. This was however granted from the date of the 
order. 
E 
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the Order 
of the High Court but find it difficult to uphold the direction that 
the maintenance should be paid only from the date of the Order. 
The High Court has not given any reason why it has not directed 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.