LexSHAIL KUMARI DEVI & ANR. versus KRISHAN BHAGWAN PATHAK @ KISHUN B. PATHAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 386 I A SHAil KUMARI DEVI & ANR. ~ \I. KRISHAN BHAGWAN PATHAK @ KISHUN B. PATHAK (Civil Appeal No.4666 of 2008) B JULY 28, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] )' ~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125: Maintenance - Entitlement to - From date of applica- c tion or from date of order- Held: Maintenance can be awarded from the date of order, or, if so ordered, from the date of appli- cation for maintenance, as the case may be - For awarding maintenance from date of application, express order is nee- essary - No special reasons, however, are required to be re- D corded by the Court - No such requirement can be read in sub section (1) of s.125 in absence of express provision to that effect. Maintenance - Quantum of- Family Court granted main- E tenance to wife as well as minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 20001 - and Rs. 10001- respectively from date of application i.e. July 21, 1997 - Challenge to - Held: Before amendment of 2001, the ceiling was Rs. 5001- - Therefore, the Family Court could not have granted maintenance exceeding Rs.5001- p.m ei- F ther to wife or minor daughter from date of application i.e. July 21, 1997-At the most, such an order could have been made effective from the date, the Amendment Act, 2001 (amending s. 125) came into force. Interim maintenance - Grant of - Held: In absence of G any express bar or prohibition, s. 125 can be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication to make interim order of maintenance subject to final outcome in the applica- tion for maintenance - In the present case, Magistrate was f right and wholly justified in ordering interim maintenance - H 286 SHAil KUMAR! DEVI & ANR. v. KRISHAN 387 BHAGWAN PATHAK@ KISHUN B. PATHAK +- Interim maintenance could have been granted by the Magis- A trate even before the amendment of s. 125 in 2001. Appellant No.1 is the wife of Respondent. On July 21, 1997, a case for maintenance under s.125 CrPC was filed whereunder Appellant No.1 claimed maintenance of B Rs.500/- p.m. for herself and Rs.500/- p.m. for her minor .. 1 daughter, Appellant No.2. It was the case of Appellant No.1 that Respondent had neglected to maintain her as also Appellant No.2. Subsequently, an application was filed by Appellants requesting the Court to grant 'interim' mainte- nance during pendency of proceedings before the Court. c The Trial Court allowed the said application and fixed in- terim maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m. for each of the applicants. Later the case was transferred to the Family Court, which finally disposed of the matter on November 29, 2006 by directing Respondent to pay maintenance of D Rs.2,000/- p.m. to Appellant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- p.m. to Appellant No.2 with effect from the date of application i.e. July 21, 1997. Appellants filed Criminal Revision in High Court, which reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.2,000/-to Rs.750/-for Appellant No.1 and from Rs.1,000/ E - to Rs.750/- for Appellant No.2. The High Court also di- rected that the amount of maintenance would be payable to the Appellants not from the date of the application i.e. July 21, 1997 but from the date of the order i.e. November 29, 2006. F In appeal to this Court, the questions which arose for consideration are: 1) Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance to the Appellants from the date of application made by them under s.125 CrPC and was also wrong in allowing maintenance of more than Rs.500/ G - either to Appellant No.1 or to Appellant No.2 before 2001 when the relevant provisions of law (s.125 CrPC as it then -~ stood), allowed Rs.500/- p.m. as maximum amount of maintenance; 2) Whether the High Court was justified in H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A reducing the amount as also issuing direction to make payment from the date of the order passed by the Family Court; 3) Whether no 'interim' maintenance could have been awarded before the amendment in CrPC in 2001 and 4) Whether even on merits, the Family Court was not jus- B tified in ignoring the evidence on record and in granting maintenance to Appellant No.1 by observing that she was ~ unable to maintain herself when the evidence clearly re- r vealed that some of the properties of Respondent were with Appellant No.1 and she also inherited land from her c father. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The ceiling which was fixed under the original enactment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.