Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1310 of 2018 Revisionist :- Anil Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Subhash Gosain,Gaurav Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai in Misc. Case No. 70 of 2013 (Smt. Anju Yadav Vs. Anil Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 21.12.2017 by that order the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- per month has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 from the date of her application being 27.8.2013.
As on date the monthly maintenance allowance for a period of 53 months would be outstanding.
As to the amount of maintenance allowance awarded, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the same is excessive in view of the fact that the applicant is only a manual labourer.
Then, as to the quantification of the amount, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not gainfully employed and, therefore, he would not be able to bear the burden of maintenance allowance provided by the learned Court below.
With respect to the above, learned Court below had found that the applicant is an able bodied person and, therefore, assuming that even he was working as a manual labourer, he would be able to provide for maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- per month awarded to opposite party no.2. This finding does not suffer from any infirmity.
Thereafter, it has been submitted that the learned court below has erred in awarding monthly maintenance allowance from the date of application, whereas it should have made from the date of order.
Considering the facts that no interim maintenance allowance has been awarded and her application remained pending for four years and further considering the fact that there is nothing to doubt the finding of the learned Court below that the opposite party no.2 does not have any means of sustenance. The award of monthly maintenance allowance appears to be justified.
Insofar as the order has been made for payment of maintenance amount from the date of application, I do not find any error in the same in view of the fact that the application had been filed by the opposite party, which ought to have been decided within a period of 2 months from that date. However, the same was not decided for more than 92 months from the date when such application was filed.
For a very long time, the opposite party did not receive any amount towards maintenance as had been claimed by her and which under law, she was entitled to. Also, even upon amount as claimed becoming payable she did not become entitled to any interest for the inordinate delay.
The cost of such delay, has to be borne by the applicant herein and not the opposite parties/claimant especially, when the law created an expectation for the application to be decided within sixty days of it being filed.
Also, there does not appear to exist any material whereby the delay caused in the proceedings may be attributed to the opposite party.
The amount of monthly maintenance allowance being minimal, it is the arrears of that allowance, when paid would be such as may be able to defray the costs of dignified existence at the sufferance of the applicant. Such expenses may be assumed to be such as would have been necessarily borne by the applicant, had the opposite party resided with him all this while.
The applicant cannot deny the care to the opposite party-his wife, for the period she has not resided with him for reason of marital discord, except if the bar of section 125 Cr. P.C. operates. No such bar operates in this case. Consequentially, though the opposite party no.2 may have stayed physically apart from the applicant, the applicant has to still bear her expences necessary to preserve her dignified human existence, keeping in mind the financial and social status of the parties.
Also, the applicant cannot be heard to say, that he would bear such expenses only from the date of the order. The applicant-an able bodied person is responsible to take care of all the financial needs of his wife from her marriage and not the date from which the court passes an order in that regard. Only upto the date, an application is made, would a defence be available to the applicant that such needs have been taken care of. Also, the learned court below has not found the opposite party to be a person with any earning to provide for her own needs.
Therefore, in my view the award of the maintenance from the date of application does not suffer from any infirmity.
In so far as the applicant has prayed for time to make good the defaulted amount, looking into the facts it does appear that the applicant is a labour. The ends of justice would be met, if the applicant is allowed some time to make such deposit.
Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of with the following directions:
1. Subject to the applicant furnishing adequate security to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the satisfaction of the court below in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee by 15.5.2018, further coercive measures adopted against the applicant shall remain stayed, subject to other conditions provided herein.
2. The applicant shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance allowance from the period May, 2018 onwards as and when it becomes due, in the manner provided by the court below under the impugned award.
3. The applicant shall further pay Rs. 8,000 /- towards maintenance allowance for the period January, 2018 to April, 2018 on or before 31.5.2018.
4. Subject to the applicant having complied with the above, the amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- (approximately) being arrears of maintenance allowance for the period from the date of application till the date of order shall be deposited in ten quanrterly instalments, such instalments being payable on or before 30.6.2018, 30.9.2018, 31.12.2018, 31.3.2019, 30.6.2019, 30.9.2019, 31.12.2019, 31.3.2020, 30.6.2020 and 30.9.2020, respectively.
The first nine instalments would be of Rs. 10,000/- each while the tenth/last instalment would be for the balance amount.
5. Any amount that may have been deposited by the applicant towards monthly maintenance allowance, in the proceedings giving rise to the instant revision application would be adjusted against the last installment/s.
All the amounts so deposited by the applicant in the Court below shall be released to the opposite party no.2 forthwith, upon due verification.
However, it is made clear that in the event of failure on part of the applicant to comply with any part of the order, coercive measures be revived from that stage without any further reference to this Court and recoveries be made from the applicant in compliance of this order.
Disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Mini