Judgment:
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5/6/2007 by which the learned Family Court has granted interim- maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 3000/- as cost of the litigation and Rs. 200/- for appearing on every date of hearing of the case.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that interim- maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month has been ordered to be paid to the respondent-wife whereas total monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 14842/-. It is argued that respondent-wife is still residing with the parents of the petitioner at his native place and that she is having income from the agriculture land of the petitioner. She has been maintaining herself for last more than three decades. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that Family Court directed payment of maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of application. Such payment could be allowed only from the date of order. If the Court awards maintenance from the date of the application, it can do so only after recording reasons therefor. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgments of this Court in Mahendra Kumar v. Rajesh Rathore and Ors. 2007(1) R.C.C. 155 and Dr. Kailash Chand Sharma v. Smt. Sunita Sharma: 2007 W.L.C. (Raj.) UC 636. Learned Counsel argued that more than 1/5th of the salary of the petitioner could be allowed as interim-maintenance as was done by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1030/2007 (Paramveer Singh v. Smt. Suresh Kanwar).
4. Shri Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-wife opposed the writ petition and submitted that source of income of the wife was agriculture land of the petitioner at his native place. Now, the petitioner has sold out that land. So long as the petitioner was having income from that land, respondent- wife never demanded from the petitioner and now when the. land has been sold, the respondent-wife is facing starvation. There is no restriction in law for not awarding the maintenance from the date of the application as provided under Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned Counsel submitted that that even the amount which has been directed to be paid by the Family Court to the respondent-wife has not been paid to the petitioner so far.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-wife further submitted that writ petition should not be entertained and be dismissed on that count alone because the petitioner has failed to comply with the direction issued by the Family Court. It is contended that petitioner himself has been prolonging the proceedings before the Family Court by asking adjournments for one or the other pretext. Learned Counsel submitted that the amount of Rs. 14,842/- is admitted monthly income of the petitioner hence, the respondent- wife is entitled at least for a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month inasmuch as, the petitioner has no other liability. It is also argued that there is no provision for awarding expenses of the proceedings and, therefore, direction to the extent of awarding Rs. 3000/- as cost and Rs. 200/- on per day attending the case is outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-order, I find that the learned Family Court by the impugned-order had directed the payment of interim-maintenance to the respondent-wife in the sum of Rs. 5000/- per month taking into consideration the fact that there is no other source of income and petitioner has no other liability. Family Court pointedly directed the petitioner to make payment of the interim- maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 14/12/2005.
7. The argument that the Family Court could not have directed payment of interim-maintenance from the date of the application on the strength of the aforesaid judgments, is to be appreciated in view of the provisions contained in Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which inter-alia provides that 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 proceedings, as the case may be.
8. It would be evident from Sub-section (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the Legislature has conferred power on the Courts not only to grant maintenance but also interim maintenance. Legislature also mandated that such maintenance/interim-maintenance can not only be granted from the date of order but also in appropriate cases if the Court considers it necessary, it may pass order granting maintenance from the order of the application. The power has also been conferred on the Courts to grant expenses of proceedings in addition to the amount of maintenance.
9. I am, therefore, not inclined to uphold the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court had no power to grant maintenance from the date of the application. Further argument that if the Court decides to do so, it is required to record reasons in such a situation also does not mean merit acceptance. In the facts of the case, it is evident that respondent was married to the petitioner 35 years ago and petitioner has not been able to show that she is having any regular income after he sold the agriculture land, hence grant of interim-maintenance from the date of the application cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is significant to note that even though the petitioner filed application for grant of interim maintenance on 14/12/2005 and it could be decided by the Family Court only on 5/6/2007. If inspite of the request of the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance, the Court cold not decide such application for so long, let alone deciding the main petition, that by itself is ground enough to grant interim maintenance from the date of application. However, keeping in view the fact that the amount of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded only at the interim stage, this amount of interim maintenance is reduced to Rs. 3000/- per month. At the same time, considering the conduct of the petitioner that he has not paid a single penny ever since passing of the order by the learned Family Court, I consider It appropriate to direct that the reduced amount of interim-maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month, shall be deposited by the petitioner including the arrears from 14/12/2005 uptil now before the Family Court No. 2 on or before 25/5/2008. In case, now the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount before that date, the original order of payment of Rs. 50001- per month as interim-maintenance would stand restored.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned-order stands modified accordingly.