# Smt. Poonam Devi Revisionist v. Narendra Kumar

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 1168
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-poonam-devi-revisionist-v-narendra-kumar-48639
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125-Revision
petitions of husband and wife connected-wife
claimed
for enhancement of maintenance
amount-and lumpsum cost-whereas husband
sought setting aside of the order granting
maintenance-impugned
order
granted
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1169
maintenance from the date of application-legal-law
settled-claimant residing away from husband is
justified and has been neglected by husband-as far
as
enhancement
is
concerned-no
fresh
circumstances have been brought-liberty to file
application u/s 127 Cr.P.C.-upon proof of change in
circumstances. Criminal Revision no.136/2012
partly allowed.

Criminal Revision no. 176/2012 dismissed.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr. : 2020 SCC Online SC 903

## Text

_Characters 0–39,634 of 42,344. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39634 for what follows._

1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
child or not, the Committee or the Board,
as the case may be, shall undertake the
process of age determination, by seeking
evidence by obtaining--

(i) the date of birth certificate
from the school, or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
and (ii) above, age shall be determined by
an ossification test or any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the
Board:

Provided such age determination
test conducted on the order of the
Committee or the Board shall be completed
within fifteen days from the date of such
order.

(3) The age recorded by the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the
true age of that person.

29. In view of the facts and
circumstances as discussed above and in
agreement with the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Ashwani
Kumar
Saxena
(supra),
Akhilesh Yadav (supra) and Rishipal
Singh Solanki (supra), as well as in view
of the law laid down by Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanat
Kumar Yadav (supra), this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 14.10.2021 passed by the
Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha in Session Trial No.
200 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.
735 of 2017: State of U.P. Vs. Pravav and
others, under Section 395, 397, 427, 412
I.P.C. Police Station Gajraula, District
Amroha is hereby set aside and reversed.

The matter is remanded back to court
of Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha to pass a fresh orders
within
two
months
from
today
in
accordance with law, without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
----------
(2022)06ILR A1168
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012
AND
Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012

Smt. Poonam Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
Narendra Kumar ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, Sri Manoj
Kumar
Jaiswal,
Sri
Shishir
Chandra
Srvastav, Sri Suyash Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Mukul Rakesh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125-Revision
petitions of husband and wife connected-wife
claimed
for enhancement of maintenance
amount-and lumpsum cost-whereas husband
sought setting aside of the order granting
maintenance-impugned
order
granted
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1169
maintenance from the date of application-legal-law
settled-claimant residing away from husband is
justified and has been neglected by husband-as far
as
enhancement
is
concerned-no
fresh
circumstances have been brought-liberty to file
application u/s 127 Cr.P.C.-upon proof of change in
circumstances. Criminal Revision no.136/2012
partly allowed.

Criminal Revision no. 176/2012 dismissed.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr. : 2020 SCC Online SC 903
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. These are two Criminal Revisions
against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2012
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lucknow, by which Criminal Misc. Case
No.760 of 2004, Smt. Poonam Devi vs.
Narendra Kumar, filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. by Smt. Poonam Devi (wife/revisionist)
has been allowed.

2. Smt. Poonam Devi has filed the
Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 inter alia
praying for enhancement of the maintenance
allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the
date of filing of the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 2.8.2004 and has also prayed
for awarding the cost of Rs. 15,000/- lump sum,
whereas Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012
has been filed by Shri Narendra Kumar, who is
the husband of Smt. Poonam Devi, praying for
setting aside the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lucknow in Case No. 760 of 2004.

3. Since both the criminal revisions arise
out of the common factual matrix and law as
well as the common judgment, therefore, these
two criminal revisions are being decided by the
common judgment and order.

4. Heard Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned
Senior Counsel, who has put in appearance
for the husband Narendra Kumar in
Criminal Revision No.176 of 2012 and Shri
Satish
Chandra
Srivastava,
who
has
appeared for Smt. Poonam Devi in
Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012.

5. Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
revisionist
Smt.
Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136
of 2012 has submitted that the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the
revisionist/claimant Smt. Poonam Devi
remained pending since 2.8.2004 and thus
eight years were taken for deciding the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
which
is
summary
proceeding
and
therefore,
she
is
entitled
for
the
maintenance allowance to be given from
the date of the filing of the application
under Section 125 i.e. 2.8.2004.

6.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
revisionist/claimant/Poonam
Devi
has
further submitted that at least 1/3rd of the
amount of the income of the husband ought
to have been awarded in her favour. He
submits that as less than 1/3rd amount has
been awarded by means of the impugned
order by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Lucknow, therefore, the
amount awarded in favour of the claimant/
revisionist is liable to be enhanced.

7. Refuting the aforesaid submissions
made
by
learned
Counsel
for
the
revisionist/claimant/Poonam
Devi,
Shri
Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel for
the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar
has submitted that there was no reason for
the trial court to award the maintenance of
Rs.1500/- per month from the date of
application.
The
order
impugned
is
ambiguous as learned trial court has
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wrongly interpreted the statement of the
opposite party 2 i.e. Smt. Poonam Devi
recorded before this Court in Habeas
Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 :
Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Ram Narain. He
submits that the trial court has erroneously
drawn adverse conclusion against the
revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar for
filing a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act at Unnao ignoring the fact
that respondent no.2/wife/Poonam Devi is
permanent resident of Unnao.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, this Court
finds that it is not in dispute that Smt.
Poonam Devi (revisionist/wife) was married
with
the
Narendra
Kumar
(revisionist/husband) on 28.4.2002. The
dispute arose between the parties after six
months
of
their
marriage.
The
revisionist/Poonam
Devi
was
living
separately
away
from
her
husband
(revisionist/Narendra Kumar) for justified
reasons as her father had died and her in-laws
were forcing her to sell her ancestral land so
that Maruti Car be purchased. From the
evidence led before the trial court it has come
on record that the Revisionist/Poonam Devi
was subjected to mental and physical cruelty
for demand of dowry.

9. It transpires from the impugned order
that learned trial Court, while deciding the
case, has framed three issues i.e. (i) whether
the husband has no source of income; (ii)
whether the husband is neglecting his wife
and is not maintaining his wife; and (iii)
whether the wife is able to maintain herself.
The finding given by the learned trial court is
extracted below:-

"प्रस्तुत म मिे में स क्ष्य से स्पष्ट है वक
य वदिी अपिे पवत से अिि रह रही है। ि वदिी
के अिुस र उसके वपत की मृत्यु हो चुकी है और
उसके पवत -स स-ससुर तथ पररि र के अन्य
सदस्य, वपत की जमीि अपिे ि म कर िे के
विए ि वदिी पर दि ि ड ििे ििे तथ ि वदिी
को प्रत वड़त करिे ििे और उसके पवत ि
ससुर ि ि िे ि वदिी से अपिे वपत की जमीि
िेचकर म रुवत क र िरीदिे के विए कहते थे
तथ म िवसक ि श रीररक रूप से प्रत वड़त
करते थे। यह भी उल्लेि वकय िय है वक
ि वदिी की ससुर ि ि िोां िे उसक तीि म ह
क िभय विरि वदय और ि वदिी के च च र म
िर यि जि उससे वमििे आये, तो ि वदिी के
ससुर ि ि िोां िे ि वदिी को जिरदस्ती उिके
स थ भेज वदय और कह वक जि तक अपिे
वपत की जमीि िेचकर म रुवत क र िरीद िहीां
िेती हो, ससुर ि ि पस मत आि । ि वदिी के
च च द्व र ि त यि प कर म मिे को सुिझ िे क
प्रय स वकय िय , वकन्तु ि वदिी के पवत ि वदिी
को िे ज िे के विए तैय र िहीां हुए।

प्रवति दी-पक्ष द्व र ि वदिी द्व र
अवभकवथत तथ्ोां से इन्क र वकय िय है, और
यह अवभकवथत वकय िय है वक ि वदिी,
प्रवति दी के यह ां कोई क म िहीां करती थी और
िह अपिे च च के स थ स्वयां चिी िई थी।
प्रवति दी उसे कई ि र िेिे िय , वकन्तु िह
ि पस िहीां आई और अन्ततः प्रवति दी िे म ०
उच्च न्य य िय में एक हैवियस क रपस द खिि
वकय , वजसमें ि वदिी िे उपखस्थत होकर ित य
वक िह अपिी मजी से च च के स थ रह रही है
और प्रवति दी के स थ रहिे से इन्क र कर
वदय । उसके ि द प्रवति दी िे प ररि ररक
न्य य िय, क िपुर में ि द सांख्य -88/ 2004 -
अन्तियत ध र -9 वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम प्रस्तुत
वकय । उल्लेििीय है वक प्रवति दी िे उन्न ि
न्य य िय से विि ह-विच्छेद की वडकी प्र प् कर
िी है और दूसरी श दी भी कर िी है, वजससे
उसे एक 12 महीिे की पुत्री भी है। ि दीिी िे
अपिी प्रवतपरीक्ष में ित य है वक िह विद
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1171
होकर जि प्रवति दी के घर आई तो पहिी ि र
स िभर रही। इस िीच उसके म यके ि िे आते-
ज ते थे और िह भी आती-ज ती थी। ि वदिी िे
अपिी प्रवतपरीक्ष में यह भी ित य वक िह
ससुर ि से विद होकर िहीां आई, िखल्क उसको
म रपीट कर विक ि वदय िय थ स क्षी िे यह
भी ित य वक िह वदि ांक 10.06.2003 को
अपिे म यके िई थी, तो उसके वपत विद
कर िे आये थे, तो मोटरस इवकि की च भी
फेककर कह वक दहेज में क र दोिे, तभी विद
कर येंिे। स क्षी िे ित य वक उसिे उच्च
न्य य िय में िय ि वदय थ वक उसकी वहम्मत
िहीां है वक िह अपिे पवत के स थ ज ि च हे,
इसविए अपिे च च के स थ ज ि च हती है

दोिोां पक्षोां की स क्ष्य से स्पष्ट है वक
ि वदिी तथ प्रवति दी की श दी के 6 म ह ि द
विि द उत्पन्न हुआ। ि वदिी के अिुस र
प्रवति दी तथ उसके पररि र के िोि दहेज के
विए उसको प्रत वउत करते थे और उसके वपत
की मृत्यु के ि द कहते थे वक यह जमीि िेचकर
म रुवत क र िरीद कर दे, जिवक प्रवति दी क
कथि है वक ि वदिी घर में कोई क म िहीां
करती थी और छोटी-छोटी ि तोां में विि द उत्पन्न
करती थी। स क्ष्य से स्पष्ट है वक प वदयिी के
पररि र के िोि श दी मैं जो मोटरस इवकि
प्रवति दी को वदये थे, यह ि वदिी िे ि पस िे
विय है, क्ोांवक प्रवति दी क र की म ांि करत
थ ।

प्रवति दी द्व र प्रस्तुत विखित िहस में
उल्लेि वकय िय है वक ि वदिी वदि ांक
08.06.2003 को अपिे च च के स थ चिी िई
थी और जि प्रवति दी उसे विद कर िे िय तो
िह म यके में िहीां वमिी, िह अपिी िहि के
यह ां िई हुई थी। उसके ि द पुिः प्रवति दी,
ि वदिी के घर िय , तो ि वदिी के पररि र ि िोां
िे प्रवति दी के स थ अभद्रत की तथ
मोटरस इवकि यू0पी0-35सी 9387 छीि िी।
वदि ांक 24.08.2007 को प्रवति दी िे प्रध ि
न्य य धीश, प ररि ररक न्य य िय, क िपुर में
ध र -9 वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम क ि द सांखस्थत
वकय । प्रवति दी िे वदि ांक (02.04 2008 को
एक हैवियस क रपस ररट सांख्य -216/2004
प्रस्तुत वकय , वजसमें ि वदिी िे अवभकथि वकय
वक िह प्रवति दी के स थ िहीां रहि च हती है,
िखल्क अपिे च च के स थ ज ि च हती है।
प्रवति दी िे ध र -9 वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम क
ि द ि ररज कर कर उन्न ि में ध र -13 वहन्दू
विि ह अवधवियम में ि द सांख्य -226/2005
वदि ांक 18.05.2005 को सांखस्थत वकय , वजसमें
ि दी को वडिी प्र प् हो िई। वदि ांक
27.11.2009 को प्रवति दी िे वशिर िी ि मक
औरत से विि ह कर विय . वजससे एक पुत्री हुई,
वजसक ि म िैष्णिी है और उसकी उम्र 12 म ह
है। इस प्रक र स्पष्ट है वक प्रवति दी ि वदिी को
दहेज के विए प्रत वड़त करत थ तथ ि वदिी
पर दि ि िि त थ वक िह अपिे वपत की
जमीि िेचकर म रुवत क र िरीदे और उसके
विए उसे म िवसक ि श रीररक रूप से प्रत वड़त
करत थ । प्रवति दी िे हैवियस क रपस की ररट
तथ ध र 9 वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम क ि द भी
सांखस्थत वकय थ और ि द में उन्न ि में ध र -13
वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम की य वचक प्रस्तुत कर
विि ह-विघटि की वडकी भी प्र प् कर िी और
पुिः वशि र िी ि मक औरत से श दी कर िी है,
वजससे उसे एक पुत्री भी है, वजसकी उम्र ििभि
12 म ह है। इस प्रक र समस्त पररखस्थवतयोां से
स्पष्ट है वक प्रवति दी, ि वदिी को ज ििूझकर
उपेवक्षत करते हुए उसक भरण-पोर्ण िहीां कर
रह है।

प्रवति दी-पक्ष की ओर से देि िर यि
ह िद र िि म श्रीमती अिुश्री ह िदर ए आई
आर 203 सुप्रीम कोटय 3174 क सन्दभय प्रस्तुत
वकय िय है, वजसमें म ििीय उच्चतम
न्य य िय द्व र यह अिध ररत वकय िय है वक
यवद दहेज म ांि करिे की स क्ष्य तथ ि वदिी को
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
श रीररक ि म िवसक रूप से प्रत वड़त करिे की
स क्ष्य पत्र ििी पर ि हो और ि वदिी स्वयां अिि
रह रही हो, तो यह भरण-पोर्ण भत्त प्र प् करिे
की अवधक ररणी िहीां है

इसी प्रक र सांजय सुध कर भोसिे
िि म कवति वकवमिि ररिीजि अप्लीकेशि
िां०- 226/2002 जो वदि ांक 08.04.2008 को म ०
उच्च न्य य िय िॉम्बे की औरांि ि द पीठ द्व र
विणीत वकय िय है, क भी सन्दभय प्रस्तुत वकय
िय है, वजसमें यह अिध ररत वकय िय है वक
दहेज की म ांि की पुवष्ट ि हो और ि वदिी
स्वयमेि अिि रह रही हो, तो यह भरण-पोर्ण
भत्त प्र प् करिे की अवधक ररणी िहीां है।

प्रस्तुत म मिे में, जैस वक ऊपर
विश्लेवर्त वकय िय है, प्रवति दी द्व र ि वदिी
को दहेज के विए प्रत वड़त वकय ज त थ तथ
उस पर दि ि ड ि ज त . थ वक िह अपिे
वपत की जमीि को िेचकर प्रवति दी के विए
म रुवत क र िरीद कर दे और इसी सम्बन्ध में
प्रवति दी िे उसे म रपीट कर भि वदय थ ।
प्रवति दी िे हैवियस क रपस ररट प्रस्तुत की तथ
क िुपर न्य य िय में ध र -9 वहन्दू विि ह
अवधवियम क ि द प्रस्तुत वकय , वजसे प्रवति दी
िे ि ररज कर विय और ध र -13 वहन्दू विि ह
अवधवियम क ि द उन्न ि में प्रस्तुत वकय ,
जिवक प्रवति दी िे एक ि द अन्तियत ध र -9
वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम क िपुर में प्रस्तुत वकय
थ और िह क िपुर में रहत थ , तो उन्न ि
न्य य िय में ध र -13 वहन्दू विि ह अवधवियम
क ि द प्रस्तुत करिे क क् औवचत्य थ ।
जिपद उन्न ि में प्रवति दी द्व र ि द प्रस्तुत
वकय िय . वजससे स्पष्ट है वक प्रवति दी येि-
केि-प्रक रेण ि वदिी से छुटक र प ि च हत
थ और उन्न ि न्य य िय से विि ह विघटि की
वडक प्र प् कर दूसर विि ह भी कर विय
वजससे उसे एक पुत्री भी है, वकन्तु प्रवति दी िे
इस तथ् क अपिी मुख्य परीक्ष में अथि
वकसी अन्य स क्ष्य के म ध्यम से पत्र ििी पर
प्रस्तुत िहीां वकय है। उि तथ् प्रवति दी की
प्रवतपरीक्ष में स मिे आय है, वजससे स्पष्ट है वक
प्रवति दी िे इस तथ् को वछप िे क प्रय स
वकय और प्रवति दी क यह आचरण भी इस
ि त क द्योतक है वक ि वदिी द्व र आरोवपत
तथ् सही है। अतएि, यह कहि समीचीि िहीां
है वक ि वदिी स्वयां प्रवति दी से अिि रह रही है
और दहेज की म ांि अथि म िवसक ि
श रीररक प्रत वड़त वकये ज िे की तथ् को वसद्ध
िहीां कर सकी।

जह ां तक, प्रवति दी की आय क
सम्बन्ध है, यह विवियि वदत है वक प्रवति दी
एच०ए०एि०, क िपुर में टेखिवशयि के पद पर
क ययरत है और उसे रु० 15,000/- प्रवतम ह प्र प्
होते हैं। जह ां तक इस तथ् क प्रश्न है वक उसके
पररि र में उसके भ ई, वपत तथ अन्य सदस्य
हैं, वजिक भरण-पोर्ण भी प्रवति दी पर आवश्रत
है, स्वीक र करिे योग्य िहीां है, क्ोांवक प्रवति दी
िे अपिी प्रवतपरीक्ष मे यह स्पष्ट वकय है वक िह
अपिे पररि र से अिि रहत है। इस प्रक र
प्रवति दी के प स पय यप् स धि है. उसके
ि िजूद भी िह अपिी पत्नी क भरण-पोर्ण
िहीां कर रह है।

जह ां तक, ि वदिी की आय के स्रोत
क प्रश्न है, प्रवति दी िे अपिी आपवत्त में
अवभकथि वकय है वक ि वदिी के ि ि के प स
ििभि 20 िीघ कृवर् योग्य भूवम है तथ उसके
च च के प स भी 25 िीघ जमीि है। वपत की
मृत्यु के ि द य वदिी अपिी कृवर् योग्य भूवम की
देिभ ि करती है और इससे ि वदिी की
म वसक आय रु०5000/- है। प्रवति दी द्व र
विखित िहस में भी इस ि त क उल्लेि वकय
िय है वक ि वदिी की ग्र म पह ड़पुर में स त
िीघ कृवर् योग्य भूवम है, वजसमे ि वदिी क 1/3
वहस्स है तथ पह डपुर ि ाँि में स त कमरे क
पक्क मक ि है, वजसकी कीमत िो ि ि रुपये
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1173
है, वजसमें ि वदिी क 1/3 वहस्स है। कृवर् योग्य
भूवम से ि वदिी रु०60.000/- ि वर्यक की आय
प्र प् करती है तथ ि ि से रु०15,000/- आय
प्र प् करती है तथ दो मक ि हैं, वजससे रु
2000/- वकर य प्र प् करती है। प्रवति दी द्व र
कुछ ितौिी के उद्धरण प्रस्तुत वकये िये हैं,
वजसमें कृवर् योग्य भूवम में ि वदिी क ि म
िसर सां०- 1737 खस्थत ग्र म भदेसुि परिि
वििोह तहसीि मोहिि ि िांज पर ि ररस के
रूप में अन्य सहि तेद रोां के स थ अांवकत
वदि य िय है। इस ि टे क क्षेत्रफि 6640
हेक्ट्ेयर है। प्रवति दी द्व र ि वदिी की कृवर्
योग्य भूवम क वििरण तो प्रस्तुत वकय िय है,
वकन्तु अपिी कृवर् योग्य भूवम क कोई वििरण
प्रस्तुत िहीां वकय िय है। यवद कृवर् योग्य भूवम
में ि ांवदिी क कोई वहस्स है भी तो यह िहीां
कह ज सकत वक उसके प स भरण-पोर्ण के
विए पय यप् स धि हैं। जह ां तक प्रवति दी पक्ष
द्व र अपिी विखित िहस में आय क वििरण
वदय िय है, उसकी कोई स क्ष्य प्रस्तुत िहीां की
िई है, अतः यह स्वीक र करि समीचीि िहीां है
वक ि वदिी के प स अपिे भरण-पोर्ण के विए
पय यप् स धि हैं।

उपरोि विश्लेर्ण से स्पष्ट है वक
ि वदिी जो प्रवति दी की विि वहत पत्नी है.
युखियुि क रण से प्रवति दी से अिि रह रही
है और प्रवति दी उसकी उपेक्ष करके भरणपोर्ण िहीां कर रह है। य वदिी की अपिी स्वयां
की कोई आय िहीां है, अतएि यह प्रवति दी से
भरण-पोर्ण प्र प् करिे की अवधक ररणी है।

जह ां तक, भरण-पोर्ण की धिर वश
क प्रश्न है. यह विवियि वदत है वक प्रवति दी
एच०ए०एि०, क िपुर में टेखिवशयि के पद पर
क ययरत है, जह ां उसे रु० 15,000/- म वसक
प्र प् होते हैं, अतएि, ि वदिी प्रवति दी से
रु04000/ प्रवतम ह भरण-पोर्ण की धिर वश
प्र प् करिे की अवधक ररणी है।
आिेश

प्र वथयिी / ि वदिी क प्र थयि पत्र
अन्तियत ध र -125 द०प्र०सां० स्वीक र वकय
ज त है। विपक्षी / प्रवति दी को आदेवशत वकय
ज त है वक िह प्र वथयिी / ि वदिी को प्र थयि पत्र
प्रस्तुत करिे की वतवथ से विणय की वतवथ तक
रू. 1,500/- (एक हज र प ाँच सौ रुपये म त्र)
प्रवतम ह तथ विणय की वतवथ से रु0 4000 / -
(च र हज र रुपये म त्र) प्रवतम ह भरण-पोर्ण
भत्त की धिर वश क भुित ि करेि ।"

10. A perusal of the impugned
judgment of the learned trial Court, it is
evident that learned trial Court has
considered the statement of the wife
Poonam Devi given before this Court in
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of
2004 on 01.10.2004, where she has stated
that she, on her own accord, is residing
with her uncle and has refused to go with
her husband (Narendra Kumar). Thereafter,
a Suit for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights
was filed by the husband/Narendra Kumar
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
which was registered as Suit No.88 of 2004
in the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Kanpur. Thereafter, the husband
Narendra Kumar had filed a suit for divorce
in the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Unnao. Has also obtained the decree
and re-married and out of the wedlock he
had 12 months old daughter. The claimant/
Poonam Devi has clarified the statement
given by her before the High Court that she
doesn't have the guts/courage to go with her
husband so she wants to go with her uncle.
After scrutinizing the evidence learned trial
court has arrived at a conclusion that the
claimant/Poonam
Devi
has
been
deliberately neglected and was denied the
maintenance. Learned trail court has further
considered that Habeas Corpus Writ
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition (supra) was filed at High Court,
Lucknow by the husband Narendra Kumar.
Thereafter in Family Court, Kanpur an
application
under
Section
9
Hindu
Marriage Act was filed. Subsequent thereto
a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed at Unnao thereafter
had arrived at a conclusion that the husband
somehow wanted to get rid of the claimant
and after getting the divorce decree from
Unnao he has remarried and had a
daughter. However, the husband in his
examination-in-chief or by way of any
other evidence has not brought these facts
on record rather the same has been revealed
in his cross examination and therefore has
rightly inferred that the husband/ Narendra
Kumar has tried to conceal these facts and
considering
this
conduct
of
the
husband/Narendra Kumar the trial court has
found
the
allegations
made
by
the
claimant/wife Poonam Devi correct and
therefore has rightly arrived at a conclusion
that it will not be proper to say that
claimant herself is residing away from her
husband Narendra Kumar and could not
prove the demand of dowry and the mental
and physical cruelty which she was
subjected and thus has decided the issue
no.2 in favour of the claimant.

11. So far as income of the
respondent/husband/ Narendra Kumar is
concerned issue no.1 was framed. It is not
in
dispute
that
Narendra
Kumar
is
employee in HAL Kanpur on the post of
Technician and he is getting Rs.15000/- per
moth. It has been rightly held that he has
enough source of income and still he is not
maintaining his wife. The wife though has
some ancestral agricultural land but on that
basis it has been rightly held that she
cannot maintain herself. The husband has
not given any details of his agricultural
income and he has not adduced any
evidence regarding the income of the wife
except the objections filed by him and thus
trial court has rightly concluded that the
claimant/Poonam Devi is the legally
wedded wife of the respondents and is
residing away from him for justified
reasons
and
the
respondents
is not
maintaining her and she has no source of
income and therefore she is entitled to
receive maintenance from the husband.

12. So far as the amount of
maintenance is concerned, on the basis of
undisputed facts that the respondents is a
Technician in HAL Kanpur where he is
getting Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore
learned trial court has held that the
claimant/Poonam Devi is entitled to get
Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance amount
from the husband/Narendra Kumar, I do
not find any illegality in the order
impugned. The same is in conformity with
the law however, considering the fact that
the
maintenance
application
remained
pending since 2004, therefore, I am of the
opinion that the claimant is entitled to a
cost of Rs.15000/- as the expenses which
has been incurred by her during these eight
years while contesting this case before the
trial court. Learned trial court has awarded
Rs.15,00/- per month maintenance from the
date of filing of the application and
Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of the
order to be paid to the claimant by the
respondents.

13.

So
far
as
awarding
the
maintenance amount from the date of the
application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
is concerned, it would be apt to mention
here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another : 2020 SCC
Online SC 903, has held in paragraph-10
that the maintenance has to be awarded
from the date of application. The relevant
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1175
part of the judgment is reproduced as under
:-

"IV Date from which Maintenance
to be awarded

There is no provision in the HMA
with respect to the date from which an Order
of maintenance may be made effective.
Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not
provide the date from which the maintenance
is to be awarded.

Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only
statutory provision which provides that the
Magistrate may award maintenance either
from the date of the order, or from the date of
application. [K. Sivaram vs. K. Mangalamba
and others: 1989(1) APLJ (HC) 604].

In the absence of a uniform regime,
there is a vast variance in the practice adopted
by the Family Courts in the country, with
respect to the date from which maintenance
must be awarded. The divergent views taken
by the Family Courts are : first, from the date
on which the application for maintenance was
filed; second, the date of the order granting
maintenance; third, the date on which the
summons was served upon the respondent.

(a) From date of application

The view that maintenance ought to
be granted from the date when the application
was made, is based on the rationale that the
primary object of maintenance laws is to
protect a deserted wife and dependant
children from destitution and vagrancy. If
maintenance is not paid from the date of
application, the party seeking maintenance
would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the
time taken for disposal of the application,
which often runs into several years.

The Orissa High Court in Susmita
Mohanty v Rabindra Nath Sahu, 1996(I)
OLR 361 held that the legislature intended to
provide a summary, quick and comparatively
inexpensive remedy to the neglected person.
Where a litigation is prolonged, either on
account of the conduct of the opposite party,
or due to the heavy docket in Courts, or for
unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and
contrary to the object of the provision, to
provide maintenance from the date of the
order.

In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt.
Nirmala Jena, 2001 Cri L.J. 879, the
Orissa High Court was considering an
application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., wherein it
was held that even though the decision to
award maintenance either from the date of
application, or from the date of order, was
within the discretion of the Court, it would
be appropriate to grant maintenance from
the date of application. This was followed
in Arun Kumar Nayak v Urmila Jena,
(2010) 93 AIC 726 (Ori) wherein it was
reiterated that dependents were entitled to
receive maintenance from the date of
application.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court
in Krishna Jain v Dharam Raj Jain, 1993
(2) MPJR 63 held that a wife may set up a
claim for maintenance to be granted from
the date of application, and the husband
may deny it. In such cases, the Court may
frame an issue, and decide the same based
on evidence led by parties. The view that
the
"normal
rule"
was
to
grant
maintenance from the date of order, and
the exception was to grant maintenance
from the date of application, would be to
insert
something
more
in
Section
125(2)Cr.P.C., which the Legislature did
not intend. Reasons must be recorded in
both cases. i.e. when maintenance is
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
awarded from the date of application, or
when it is awarded from the date of order.

The law governing payment of
maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of
application, was extended to HAMA by the
Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad
Srivastava v Additional District Judge, Gonda
& Ors.51 The Court held that the date of
application should always be regarded as the
starting point for payment of maintenance.
The Court was considering a suit for
maintenance u/S. 18 of HAMA, wherein the
Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid
from the date of judgment. The High Court
held that the normal inference should be that
the order of maintenance would be effective
from the date of application. A party seeking
maintenance would otherwise be deprived of
maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the
application, which may arise due to paucity of
time of the Court, or on account of the conduct
of one of the parties. In this case, there was a
delay of seven years in disposing of the suit,
and the wife could not be made to starve till
such time. The wife was held to be entitled to
maintenance from the date of application /
suit.

The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh
Shukla v Rukmani, Crl. Rev. Pet. No.
851/2019, decided by the Delhi High Court
vide order dated 29.11.2019, held that where
the wife is unemployed and is incurring
expenses towards maintaining herself and the
minor child / children, she is entitled to
receive maintenance from the date of
application. Maintenance is awarded to a
wife to overcome the financial crunch, which
occurs on account of her separation from her
husband. It is neither a matter of favour to
the wife, nor any charity done by the
husband.

(b) From the date of order

The
second
view
that
maintenance ought to be awarded from the
date of order is based on the premise that
the general rule is to award maintenance
from the date of order, and grant of
maintenance from the date of application
must be the exception. The foundation of
this view is based on the interpretation of
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which provides :

"(2) Any such allowance for the
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses for proceeding shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered,
from the date of the application for
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may
be."

The words "or, if so ordered" in
Section 125 has been interpreted to mean
that
where
the
court
is
awarding
maintenance from the date of application,
special reasons ought to be recorded. [Bina
Devi & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. (2010) 69 ACC 19]In Bina Devi v
State of U.P., (2010) 69 ACC 19, the
Allahabad High Court on an interpretation
of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when
maintenance is directed to be paid from the
date of application, the Court must record
reasons. If the order is silent, it will be
effective from the date of the order, for
which reasons need not be recorded. The
Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is
prima facie clear that maintenance shall be
payable from the date of the order.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court
in Amit Verma v Sangeeta Verma & Ors.
C.R.R. No. 3542/2019 decided by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order
dated 08.1.2020, directed that maintenance
ought to be granted from the date of the
order.
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1177

(c) From the date of service of
summons

The third view followed by some
Courts is that maintenance ought to be
granted from the date of service of
summons upon the respondent.

The Kerala High Court in S.
Radhakumari v K.M.K. Nair, AIR 1983 Ker
139, was considering an application for
interim maintenance preferred by the wife
in divorce proceedings filed by the
husband. The High Court held that
maintenance must be awarded to the wife
from the date on which summons were
served in the main divorce petition. The
Court relied upon the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in Samir Banerjee v
Sujata Banerjee, 70 CWN 633, and held
that Section 24 of the HMA does not
contain any provision that maintenance
must be awarded from a specific date. The
Court may, in exercise of its discretion,
award maintenance from the date of
service of summons.

The Orissa High Court in Gouri
Das v Pradyumna Kumar Das, 1986 (II)
OLR 44, was considering an application
for interim maintenance filed u/S. 24 HMA
by the wife, in a divorce petition instituted
by the husband. The Court held that the
ordinary rule is to award maintenance
from the date of service of summons. It was
held that in cases where the applicant in
the maintenance petition is also the
petitioner
in
the
divorce
petition,
maintenance becomes payable from the
date when summons is served upon the
respondent in the main proceeding.

In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar
Das, AIR 2009 Ori 133, the Orissa High
Court held that the wife was entitled to
maintenance from the date when the
husband entered appearance. The Court
was considering an application for interim
maintenance u/S. 24 HMA in a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights filed by the
wife. The Family Court awarded interim
maintenance to the wife and minor child
from the date of the order. In an appeal
filed by the wife and minor child seeking
maintenance from the date of application,
the High Court held that the Family Court
had failed to assign any reasons in support
of its order, and directed :

"9.
?Learned
Judge.
Family
Court has not assigned any reason as to
why he passed the order of interim
maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When
admittedly the parties are living separately
and prima facie it appears that the
Petitioners have no independent source of
income, therefore, in our view order should
have been passed for payment of interim
maintenance from the date of appearance
of the Opposite Party-husband?"

Discussion and Directions

The
judgments
hereinabove
reveal the divergent views of different High
Courts on the date from which maintenance
must be awarded.

Even though a judicial discretion
is conferred upon the Court to grant
maintenance either from the date of
application or from the date of the order in
S. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate
to grant maintenance from the date of
application in all cases, including Section
125 Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the
provisions relating to maintenance, we find
that there is significant delay in disposal of
the applications for interim maintenance
for years on end. It would therefore be in
the interests of justice and fair play that
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintenance is awarded from the date of
the application.

ourt held that the entitlement of
maintenance should not be left to the
uncertain date of disposal of the case. The
enormous delay in disposal of proceedings
justifies the award of maintenance from the
date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, this
Court held that repetitive adjournments
sought by the husband in that case resulted
in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of
the case. The delay in adjudication was not
only against human rights, but also against
the basic embodiment of dignity of an
individual. The delay in the conduct of the
proceedings
would
require
grant
of
maintenance to date back to the date of
application.

The
rationale
of
granting
maintenance from the date of application
finds its roots in the object of enacting
maintenance legislations, so as to enable
the wife to overcome the financial crunch
which occurs on separation from the
husband.
Financial
constraints
of
a
dependant spouse hampers their capacity
to be effectively represented before the
Court. In order to prevent a dependant
from being reduced to destitution, it is
necessary that maintenance is awarded
from the date on which the application for
maintenance is filed before the concerned
Court.

In Badshah v Urmila Badshah
Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188, the Supreme
Court was considering the interpretation of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held :

"13.3. purposive interpretation
needs to be given to the provisions of
Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the
application of a destitute wife or hapless
children or parents under this provision,
the Court is dealing with the marginalised
sections of the society. The purpose is to
achieve "social justice" which is the
constitutional vision, enshrined in the
Preamble of the Constitution of India. The
Preamble to the Constitution of India
clearly signals that we have chosen the
democratic path under the rule of law to
achieve the goal of securing for all its
citizens, justice, liberty, equality and
fraternity.
It
specifically
highlights
achieving their social justice. Therefore, it
becomes the bounden duty of the courts to
advance the cause of the social justice.
While giving interpretation to a particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge
the gap between the law and society."

It has therefore become necessary
to
issue
directions
to
bring
about
uniformity and consistency in the Orders
passed by all Courts, by directing that
maintenance be awarded from the date on
which the application was made before the
concerned Court. The right to claim
maintenance must date back to the date of
filing the application, since the period
during which the maintenance proceedings
remained pending is not within the control
of the applicant."

14. From the aforesaid dictum, it
transpires that controversy in this regard
has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and it has been directed by Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
that
maintenance
be
awarded from the date on which the
application was made before the concerned
Court. It was also held by the Apex Court
that the right to claim maintenance must
date back to the date of filing the
application, since the period during which
the maintenance proceedings remained
6 All. Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Narendra Kumar
1179
pending is not within the control of the
applicant.
The
judgement
being
retrospective shall apply in this case also.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,000/- awarded by
the learned trial court in favour of the
claimant/wife has to be paid by the
husband/Narendra
Kumar
to
the
claimant/wife from the date of filing of the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e.
w.e.f. 2.8.2004.

15. Accordingly, Criminal Revision
No. 136 of 2012 filed by Smt. Poonam
Devi is allowed in part. The judgment and
order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the trial
court is modified to the extent that the
husband-Narendra Kumar is directed to pay
a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to his wife-Smt.
Poonam Devi from the date of application
filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. w.e.f.
2.8.2004. It is clarified that any amount
paid by the husband-Narendra Kumar
during pendency of the case under Section
125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court
shall be adjusted from the amount payable
to Smt. Poonam Devi.

16. So far as the enhancement of the
maintenance as awarded by the trial Court
is concerned, no fresh circumstances have
been brought before this Court so as to
enhance the maintenance, however, liberty
is granted to the claimant/wife to move an
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for
altercation in allowance of maintenance
upon proof of change in circumstances
such as enhancement of the salary of her
husband Narendra Kumar etc. If such
application is made, the same shall be
decided, expeditiously, by the trial court
concerned.

17. So far as plea raised in Criminal
Revision No. 176 of 2012 by the husband
Narendra Kumar that statement made by
the claimant before this Court in the
Habeas Corpus writ petition has not been
considered by the learned trial court is
concerned, the same is not correct as the
learned trial court has not only considered
the statement of the claimant in the Habeas
Corpus writ petition made before this Court
but has also considered the statement of the
claimant/witness/wife, who has stated that
the statement was given as she could not
dare to go with her husband and therefore
she wanted to go with her uncle.

18. In Habeas corpus writ petition
only this much is to be seen whether the
detenue has been illegally detained or not.
The only interpretation to the statement
given by the wife/Poonam Devi before this
Court in Habeas Corpus petition can be
made that she has not been illegally
detained. The learned trial court while
considering
this
statement
has
simultaneously also considered the conduct
of the husband by which he has filed case
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
at Kanpur Family Court and another case
under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act was
filed by the husband at Unnao court and
has obtained the decree of divorce and has
remarried after the decree of divorce and
has a girl of 12 months old. All these facts
show that learned trial court has rightly
held that husband Narendra Kumar wanted
to get rid of the claimant/wife and all these
facts have not been stated by him in his
examination-in-chief or by means of any
other evidence rather the same have come
before this Court in his cross examination
and therefore has rightly held that the
husband has tried to conceal these facts
from this court and then considering the
conduct of the husband, the trial court has
rightly held that the claimant is residing
away from the husband for justified reasons
and she has been neglected by not paying
maintenance and husband had to maintain
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to her and she is a destitute and has no
source of income and therefore she is
entitled to get the maintenance from the
husband.

19. In view of the forgoing
discussion, the Criminal Revision No. 176
of 2012 filed by the husband/Narendra
Kumar is dismissed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A1180
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Second Appeal No. 169 of 2022

Shantisaran & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sadiq Hasan @ Nibbar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Sri Dinesh Kr.
Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.Z. Siddiqui

A.