# Waheeda v. State of U.P. may be stayed - **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 689 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-08-12 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.17754 of 2009 - **Bench:** Rajesh Chandra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/waheeda-v-state-of-u-p-may-be-stayed-41424 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri Vishnu Pratap, S.C. Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957-Section 14-A (3), 15-Order passed by A.D.M.-challenged on ground of want of delegation of power-held misconceived under Section 14-A (3) and (4)-law itself authorities the Asstt. Collector to act on behalf of Collector-being subordinate to Collectorduty entrusted to him-can not be termed as without jurisdiction. Held: Para 7 An argument as put forth by Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner possibly in view of Section 26 of the Act of 1957 that unless and until notification is there Additional District Magistrate cannot act as District Magistrate in this regard. We are of the view that by virtue of the power specifically provided in this respect under Section 14-A (3) & (4) of the Act, the law itself authorises Additional Collector to act on behalf of the Collector. A notification means introduction of governmental circular, if any, to be known to every one. Unless it is known to every one by such ## Text 2 All] Arvind Kumar Rai V. The State of U.P. and others 689 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.17754 of 2009 Kamruddin ...Applicant Versus State of UP ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri R.S. Chauhan Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 125Maintenance-While granting maintenance-No special reason required to be recorded-but the order should be in expressed term-grant of maintenance from the date of application-No interference called for. Held: Para 6 It is clear from the above noted observation that if the maintenance is allowed from the date of application then an express order is necessary in that regard but no special reasons are required to be given by the Court. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed an express order that the maintenance shall be given from the date of application and thus the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C. have been complied with. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.) 1. This application under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2007, Waheeda Vs. State of U.P. may be stayed. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Waheeda moved an application under section 125 Cr. P.C. against her husband Kamruddin in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Jaunpur. That application was decided on merit vide order dated 2.12.2006. The Magistrate rejected the application of Smt. Waheeda for her maintenance, but allowed the application for maintenance of her daughters Km. Hina and Km.Rina. Against that order Criminal Revision No.14/2007 was filed which was ultimately decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur. The revision was allowed and Smt.Waheeda was also allowed maintenance @ Rs.2000/- p.m. from the date of her application i.e.14.8.2002. In this application under section 482 Cr. P.C. this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur passed on12.6.2009 has been challenged. 3. The contention of the applicant is that as a normal rule the maintenance should be allowed from the date of order and if the maintenance is granted from the date of application moved under section 125 Cr. P.C. then special reasons should be given by the Court. 4. I have considered over the matter and also heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shail Kumari Devi Vs. Krishna Bhagwan Pathak 2008, Crl. Law Journal 3881. The answer to his 690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 arguments has itself been given in the above noted judgment. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under in para 47 of the judgment reported in the above said journal. "We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under section 125 of Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of order, or if so orders, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our Judgment, no such requirement can be read in Subsection (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 6. It is clear from the above noted observation that if the maintenance is allowed from the date of application then an express order is necessary in that regard but no special reasons are required to be given by the Court. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed an express order that the maintenance shall be given from the date of application and thus the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C. have been complied with. 7. In view of the above I feel that there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur nor there is any reason to stay the aforesaid order. 8. The application under section 482 Cr. P.C. is therefore, dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J. THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7776 of 2009. Shiv Pujan Sahani. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raj Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vishnu Pratap, S.C. Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957-Section 14-A (3), 15-Order passed by A.D.M.-challenged on ground of want of delegation of power-held misconceived under Section 14-A (3) and (4)-law itself authorities the Asstt. Collector to act on behalf of Collector-being subordinate to Collectorduty entrusted to him-can not be termed as without jurisdiction. Held: Para 7 An argument as put forth by Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner possibly in view of Section 26 of the Act of 1957 that unless and until notification is there Additional District Magistrate cannot act as District Magistrate in this regard. We are of the view that by virtue of the power specifically provided in this respect under Section 14-A (3) & (4) of the Act, the law itself authorises Additional Collector to act on behalf of the Collector. A notification means introduction of governmental circular, if any, to be known to every one. Unless it is known to every one by such