Davi Vs. Purshottam

Davi vs Purshottam

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 14, 1991

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758812

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758812
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.R. Arora, J.
Decided On: Jan 14, 1991
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 38 of 1990
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 125, 126, 127 and 128--Maintenance--Date of--Court can look in to delaying tactics while deciding question of date of maintenance--Cogent reasons given by Addl. Sessions Judge for granting maintenance from date of order--Held, no interference is called for.;Court, while passing the...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Davi

Respondent

Purshottam

Legal References

Cases Referred: Savitri v. Govind Singh
Reported In: 1991(1)WLN196

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - sections 125, 126, 127 and 128--maintenance--date of--court can look in to delaying tactics while deciding question of date of maintenance--cogent reasons given by addl. sessions judge for granting maintenance from date of order--held, no interference is called for.;court, while passing the order as to from which date the maintenance is to be granted can look-into the fact of delaying tactics adopted by the respondent, the learned additional sessions judge has given cogent reasons for not allowing the maintenance from the date of the application and has allowed the maintenance from the date of the order. in my view, the order passed by the leaned additional sessions judge is perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference.;revision dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....asking a person to pay maintenance to his wife, children or parents, as the case may be, the magistrate does not impose any punishment on such person for a crime committed by him, but allows a reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the neglected persons. under the provisions of section 125, cr. p.c., as has been held by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of savitri v. govind singh : 1986 crilj41 , the court is even authorised to grant an interim maintenance to the applicant till the applicant is finally disposed of. a bare reading of these sections enshrined in the code of criminal procedure would show that a court, while passing the order as to from which date the maintenance is to be granted can look-into the fact of delaying tactics adopted by the respondent, the requirements of the applicant and other circumstances. if the application is not disposed-of due to heavy pendency of the work-in the court for a considerable peiod, then the applicant is not at fault and the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application itself. in the present case, the learned additional sessions judge has given cogent reasons for not allowing the maintenance from the date of the application and has allowed the maintenance from the date of the order. in my view, the order passed by the leaned additional sessions judge is perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference.7. in the result, the revision-petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

B.R. Arora, J.

1. This miscellaneous criminal revision is directed against the order dated May 2, 1989, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in criminal revision petition No. 51 of 1988, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for the payment of the amount of the maintenance from the date of the order.

2. Smt. Davi filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the non-petitioner Purshottam in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, for grant of maintenance to her three children. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jodhpur, by his order dated October 13, 1987, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to the three children of Smt. Davi. and directed their father Purshottam to pay the amount of maintenance from the date of application. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4 Jodhpur, Purshottam filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The revision petition was ultimately decided by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated May. 1989. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, maintained the order granting maintenance to the three children but directed that the amount will be payable from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the wife Smt. Davi on behalf of her three children.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in ordering for the grant of the maintenance from the date of the order. The maintenance was rightly granted by the learned trial Court from the date of the application. The learned Counsel for the non- petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure intend to fulfil an essential purpose and provide preventive remedy for securing the payment of maintenance allowance, which can be granted quickly and in deserving cases with effect from the date of application itself. Sub-clause (2) of Section 125 Cr. P.C. specifically provides that the amount of maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order or from the date of the application for maintenance. While granting the maintenance from the date of the application, it is not necessary that the Court should assign reasons for the same. If the circumstances so desire, the maintenance can be awarded from the date of the application. The object of these provisions is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children by providing a simple speedy but limited relief. These provisions intend to protect the neglected wife and children from hunger and to try for removing the human-difficulties. While passing an order under these provisions, asking a person to pay maintenance to his wife, children or parents, as the case may be, the Magistrate does not impose any punishment on such person for a crime committed by him, but allows a reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the neglected persons. Under the provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C., as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri v. Govind Singh : 1986 CriLJ41 , the Court is even authorised to grant an interim maintenance to the applicant till the applicant is finally disposed of. A bare reading of these Sections enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure would show that a Court, while passing the order as to from which date the maintenance is to be granted can look-into the fact of delaying tactics adopted by the respondent, the requirements of the applicant and other circumstances. If the application is not disposed-of due to heavy pendency of the work-in the Court for a considerable peiod, then the applicant is not at fault and the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application itself. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for not allowing the maintenance from the date of the application and has allowed the maintenance from the date of the order. In my view, the order passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference.

7. In the result, the revision-petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1991 Same Parties Davi vs Purshottam Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.R. Arora, J.

Criminal