Judgment:
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. Both these revisions, are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2008, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in case No. 181 of 2004, whereby said court has partly allowed application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), directing Adish Kumar Jain to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month, as maintenance to his minor son Ayush Jain. The said court has dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance to Rashmi Jain (wife of Adish Kumar Jain) and major son Aman Jain.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Adish Kumar Jain got married to Rashmi Jain on 28.11.1983. Two sons namely Aman Jain and Ayush Jain (minor) were born out of the wedlock. Smt. Rashmi Jain and the two sons, moved application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the trial court, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, for herself, and Rs. 5,000/- per month for her children. It is pleaded by Rashmi Jain that she was harassed by her husband for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, and forced to leave, with two minor sons, in the year 2002, from her husband's house. It is also pleaded that Adish Kumar Jain (husband of Rashmi Jain) is an official in a bank, and his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month, apart from Rs. 10,000/- per month, earnings from other sources. It is also pleaded that the applicants-Rashmi Jain and her two sons were unable to maintain themselves.
4. Adish Kumar Jain, contested the application, moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by his wife and sons, before the trial court. However, he admitted that he got married to Rashmi Jain on 28.11.1983, and the fact that the two sons namely, Aman Jain and Ayush Jain, were born out of the wedlock. It is pleaded by Adish Kumar Jain that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been moved to harass him. He denied that he ever made any demand of dowry, or harassed his wife for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is pointed out by him, in his written statement, before the trial court, that criminal case No. 1687 of 1990, State v. Adish Kumar Jain and Ors. was instituted by his wife-Rashmi Jain, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the court after recording evidence, found that no charge was proved against the accused Adish Kumar Jain and others, and acquitted them of the charge. He further pointed out that Rashmi Jain is M.A., B.Ed. and she is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing tuition etc. and is able to maintain herself. He also pleaded that elder son Aman Jain is major and doing his business, as such, not entitled to any maintenance. It is alleged in the written statement by Adish Kumar Jain that his wife did not perform the matrimonial obligations, and her behaviour had been negligent towards him. It is pleaded by him that his carry home salary is Rs. 13,606/- per month. Lastly, it is pleaded by him that he is ready to keep his wife and children with him.
5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found that Rashmi Jain is able to maintain herself. The trial court further found that she was not forced to leave her husband's house and living separately without sufficient reason. As to the entitlement of maintenance to elder son Aman Jain, it is found by the trial court that he has become major, as such, not entitled to maintenance from his father Adish Kumar Jain. However, the trial court found that the youngest son Ayush Jain is minor and unable to maintain himself, and therefore, directed Adish Kumar Jain to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to him from the date of order.
6. On behalf of Smt. Rashmi Jain, it is argued that the trial court has erred in law in refusing to grant maintenance to her. I have gone through the record, and found that there is sufficient material on the record, which reflects that Rashmi Jain, has left her husband's house along with two sons and started living separately, without sufficient reason. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage took place in the year 1983, and she left house in the year 2002. It is hard to believe that after a period of 10-15 years, husband demanded dowry and harassed his wife for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is already mentioned above that Adish Kumar Jain, and his relatives were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Therefore, this Court does not find that the trial court has committed any error of law in refusing to grant maintenance to Rashmi Jain as in view of provision contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the above circumstances, she was not entitled to the maintenance from her husband.
7. Admittedly, Amit Jain, elder son of Adish Kumar Jain, is major. It is submitted on behalf of his mother (Rashmi Jain) that his business is not running well. Whether his business is running well or not, after he, has become major, he is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. As such, finding of the trial court to that effect is also not liable to be interfered with.
8. However, the trial court has committed error of law to the extent that the minor son Ayush Jain, has not been awarded maintenance from the date of application. The trial court has awarded maintenance to him from the date of order. Since, the entitlement of maintenance to a minor is only up to age of attaining majority, if the courts instead of granting maintenance to such needy persons from the date of application, grant from the date of order, the litigants who are liable to pay, may get the proceedings lingered, thereby depriving the minor child of his major portion of maintenance. That being so, the impugned order needs to be modified to that extent.
9. Learned Counsel for Adish Kumar Jain, argued that Ayush Jain has not filed any revision, as such, this Court cannot modify the order in his favour. Provision contained in Section 397 of Cr.P.C., empowers the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the final orders (which are not appealable) passed by the courts subordinate to it, there is nothing which prohibits the court to modify the impugned order.
10. For the reasons, as discussed above, both the revisions are dismissed with the modification in the impugned order that Adish Kumar Jain shall pay maintenance to his minor son Ayush Jain at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, as directed by the trial court, from the date of application till he attains age of majority.