JUDGMENT M.K. Mittal, J.
1. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counselor the accused applicant, learned A.G A. and perused the record.
2. Application has been filed under Section 462 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by Family Court, Meerut, whereby he allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the opposite party No. 2 in Misc. Case No. 147 of 2003 Smt. Shakeela v. Shahabuddin with effect from the date of application i.e. 3.11.2003 at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month to the applicant and also Rs. 1000 per month to her daughter Nimmi. Opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming for maintenance on 9.4.2003.
3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the accused applicant is that the applicant had already divorced opposite party No. 2 and that Km. Nimmi has become major and is not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a minor child is entitled to maintenance and a child if attains majority is also entitled to maintenance, if by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself.
4. It appears that when the application for interim maintenance was filed Nimmi was minor. The applicant in his written statement and also in objection against the interim maintenance application has not taken the plea that Km. Nimmi was major. It appears that for the first time in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., her date of birth has been given as 22.1.1984.
5. Learned A.G.A. has contended that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Shakeela denies any divorce and the fact of divorce is yet to be established and therefore she is entitled to interim maintenance. The contention of learned Counsel for the state is correct. Only application for interim maintenance has been decided at this stage and it has yet to be decided finally whether the applicant has divorced the opposite party No. 2 and therefore she is entitled to interim maintenance. As far as the question of interim maintenance for Km. Nimmi is concerned she can get interim maintenance up to the date of attaining majority.
6. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant has further contended that learned Judge has not given any reason for awarding the maintenance from the date of application and on this ground he has contended that impugned order itself is not legal. Second proviso of Section 125(1) provides that the Magistrate may, during the pendeney of proceedings regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under thus Sub-section order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child. Third proviso to this Sub-section provides that application for interim maintenance, as far as possible be decided within sixty days from the date of service of notice. Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. provides that any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceedings shall be payable from the date of order, or, if so, ordered from the date of application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings as the case may be. Therefore, in view of this provision, it is clear that the Magistrate can provide for interim maintenance with effect from date of order or from the date of application. This section does not require the Magistrate to give separate reasons if he allows interim maintenance from the date of application.
7. In the case of Jagat Narain v. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri and Ors. 1998 (1) Allahabad Criminal Rulings, 315, the division bench of this Court while considering the, question of grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, has held that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to give reasons while granting maintenance from the date of application, although, it is proper to do so. Non assigning the reasons does not vitiate the order of Magistrate. Reference can also be made to the case of Paras Nath Kurmi v. Sessions Judge, Mau and Ors. 1997, UPNP, 299 and also Satish Chandra Gupta v. Anita and Ors. Allahabad Criminal Ruling 1994 page 631. In the Case of Satish Chandra Gupta (supra), it has been held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. gives two option from the date of order or date of application, ll is the discretion of Magistrate. The delay in disposal of proceedings is by itself a sufficient ground to grant maintenance from the date of application.
8. In the instant case, the application for interim maintenance was given on 3.11.2003 but has been decided on 30.9.2005. Therefore in view of the position referred above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused applicant that learned Magistrate should have given reasons in awarding interim maintenance with effect from date of application and that the order is not legal, is not tenable and cannot be accepted.
9. In view of above, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that Km Nimmi shall get interim maintenance up to the date she attains majority.
10. Application is disposed of accordingly.