The brief facts of the case are that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionists before the learned Principal Family Judge, Allahabad, which was registered there as Maintenance Case no.99 of 2006, Ankita Sarkar @ Shikha Vs. Sanjeet Sarkar. After hearing both the parties the said petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was disposed of on merits. After its full trial the petition was allowed and opposite party no.2 was directed by the learned lower Court that he should pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to revisionist no.1 and a sum of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to his son, revisionist no.2. It was further directed that the maintenance amounts were to be paid from the date of judgment and not from the date of the petition.
This revision was listed for hearing on 27.5.2010. On that date learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA were present. None was present on behalf of opposite party no.2 Sanjeet Sarkar.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA.
Learned AGA has opposed this revision.
The revisionists felt aggrieved on two points, firstly that the amount of maintenance is inadequate and secondly it should have been payable from the date of the petition and not from the date of the order.
From the perusal of the judgment impugned it is evident that the learned lower Court has determined the monthly income of opposite party no.2 as Rs.23,868/- and the take home salary as Rs.21,603/-. Admittedly, the revisionist no.1 is the wife and revisionist no.2 is the minor legitimate son of opposite party no.2. It is also admitted that he is holding the post of senior executive in Pidilite Industries, New Delhi. These facts have become final and so is the monthly income of opposite party no.2. It is boundened duty of the husband or father to maintain his wife and son. The amount of maintenance should be reasonable and fair. Opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the maintenance to the revisionists with reference to their needs and the standard of life enjoyed during the subsistence of the relationship. Keeping in view the today's price index a monthly sum of Rs.1500/- and Rs.1000/- is definitely inadequate and totally insufficient, specially when the take home salary of opposite party no.2 is more than Rs.21,600/-. Therefore, in my opinion the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned lower Court is inadequate, keeping in view the price index prevailing today. It would be very difficult for a woman to carry on with a meager amount of Rs.1500/- p.m. and for an infant with Rs.1000/- p.m. only. Therefore, the amount of maintenance payable to the revisionist no.1 is enhanced to Rs.3500/-p.m. and that of revisionist no.2 to Rs.2000/-p.m.
Learned lower Court has allowed the maintenance from the date of order without assigning any reason whatsoever. He has not mentioned any cogent reason as to why he did not allow the maintenance from the date of petition. The learned lower Court has accepted, fact-wise, the contention of the revisionists that they were neglected by opposite party no.2 from a date prior to filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any maintenance from the person who was legally bound to pay the same to them,if the revisionists had survived on the benevolence and mercy of others the responsibility of the husband or father does not come to an end even for the period during which the destitutes were getting nothing from the person legally bound to maintain them.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was amended by U.P.Act No.36 of 2000 and sub-section 6 was inserted which is as follows:
"Where in a proceeding under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the person claiming maintenance is in need for immediate relief for his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Magistrate may, on his application, order the person against whom the maintenance is claimed, to pay to the person claiming the maintenance, during the pendency of the proceeding such monthly allowance not exceeding five thousand rupees and such expenses of the proceeding as the Magistrate consider reasonable and such order shall be enforceable as and order of maintenance."
Inclusion of this provision by the State Legislature recognizes the need of the destitute woman or child during the pendency of a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the idea underlying is that the deserted wife and children should be given a financial help from the very beginning of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The provision of Chapter IX of the Code is a measure to social justice extended to protect the woman and children and its object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides the speedy remedy to deserted women and children. Therefore, in normal circumstances a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., if allowed, should be allowed from the date of the petition. In appropriate cases it should be allowed from the date of the order, but the court concerned should give cogent reasons for it. Such an order may be passed when the Court feels that the petition has been unduly delayed due to deliberate negligent attitude of the petitioner.
In the instant case I do not find that there is anything which may indicate that the proceeding before the learned lower Court was deliberately delayed by the revisionist. The petition was filed on 17.2.2006 and it was finally disposed of within a period of less than three years. Therefore, it can not be said that the matter has been unduly lingered. In these circumstances I am of the view that the petition should have been allowed from the date when it was moved before the learned lower Court. Keeping in view the above discussions, I am of the view that the revision should be partly allowed.
As a consequence, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stands allowed from the date when it was filed before the learned lower Court. The revisionist no.1 is entitled to get the maintenance @ Rs.3500/-p.m. and the revisionist no.2 shall get the maintenance @ Rs.2000/- p.m. till he attains the age of majority.
Order Date :- 12.11.2010 IA