Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 634 of 2018 Revisionist :- Daya Shankar Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kavindra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Yogesh Kumar on behalf of opposite party no.2.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by the Family Court/F.T.C. IIIrd Ballia, by which the said Court has provided payment of monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- to opposite party no.2 from the date of the application, which is 16.9.2015. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is an employee of the Central Reserve Police Force and drawing salary therefrom. Considering the above, single factor, the order for payment of monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- to opposite party no.2, who admittedly, is living separately, is neither excessive nor arbitrary.
Then, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the award of maintenance allowance should have been made from the date of the order and not the date of the application.
Admittedly, about Rs. 1,35,000/- is outstanding against the applicant, up to today.
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 60 days from that date. However, the same has been decided more than 28 months from the date when such application was filed.
The opposite party has not received 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 has not become entitled to any interest for the inordinate delay. The cost of such delay, if at all has to be borne by one party, it has to be the applicant herein and not the opposite party/claimant especially, when the law created an expectation for the application to be decided within sixty days of it being filed. Therefore, in my view the award of the maintenance from the date of application does not suffer from any infirmity.
Insofar as the applicant has prayed for time to make good the deficiency of deposit, looking into the facts, admittedly, the applicant is an employee of the para military force drawing a regular salary sufficient to discharge the liability under the impugned order, in one go. Consequently, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Mini