Krishna v. Dharam Raj, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Cri. Rev. No. 45 of 1986

Attorney(S)

For Applicant: Rakesh Jain
For Non-applicant: Sohan Choudhary

Judges

P.C Pathak
S.K Chawla, JJ.

Acts

Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. V of 1908) the analogous provision Section 488(2)
Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974,
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Sub-section (2) of Section 125(2)
Sub-section (2) of Section 125
Section 354(6) of the Code

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion arises from a maintenance petition filed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, by Smt. Krishnabai and her child Ku. Kalpana. Smt. Krishnabai alleged that she was married to the non-applicant Dharamraj about 16 years before the petition; during pregnancy the non-applicant snatched her ornaments and forced her to return to her parents, and after the child's birth he refused to take them back. On 4-6-1982 the applicant and her child filed an application under Section 125 claiming maintenance of Rs. 400 per month for the mother and Rs. 200 per month for the child from the date of application. The non-applicant filed a written statement on 30-9-1982.

The Trial Court allowed maintenance by order dated 24-4-1985, granting Rs. 200 to the wife and Rs. 100 to the child from the date of application. The non-applicant filed a revision on 5-6-1985 before the Sessions Court. The Revisional Court held that both the wife and the child were entitled to maintenance but set aside the Magistrate's retrospective award because the Magistrate had not recorded reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application; it therefore modified the Trial Court order to make maintenance payable from the date of the Trial Court's order (24-4-1985).

Aggrieved, the non-applicant filed M. Cr. C. No. 1096/86, while the applicants challenged the revisional findings (including findings as to the child's legitimacy and the setting aside of the grant from the date of application). Counsel for both parties were heard; an amicus curiae also assisted the court. The opinion frames and answers three central questions concerning (i) whether recording reasons is essential for awarding maintenance from the date of application or order, (ii) whether absence of reasons requires modification to make the award payable from the date of order, and (iii) whether "date of order" in Section 125(2) includes the date of a revisional court's order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether recording of reasons is a sine qua non (essential requirement) for awarding maintenance from the date of application or from the date of the order under Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
If reasons are essential, whether the absence of recorded reasons requires modification of the award so that maintenance becomes payable only from the date of the order.
Whether the phrase "date of order" in Section 125(2) can mean the date of the revisional court's order (i.e., whether the revisional court's order can serve as the operative "date of order").

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lachmani v. Ramu, Cr. Re. No. 405/82 (10-11-1982)	Held that ordinarily allowance is payable from date of order and, if awarded from date of application, such order should be backed by some reason.	The opinion states this view but rejects it: it calls the "normal rule" formulation a strained reading of Section 125(2) and overrules this approach as inconsistent with the plain words of the sub-section.
Mohd. Inayatulla Kha v. Smt. Salma Bano, M. Cr. C. No. 97/83 (2-4-1985)	Agreement with the Lachmani view that ordinarily maintenance is from date of order and not from date of application.	The opinion records this concurrence but concludes the decision does not lay down correct law and must be overruled.
C.M. Manai v. Esther Pachikara and Ors., (1983) I DMC 40 (Kerala)	Held that it is not necessary for the Court to record reasons for awarding maintenance from date of petition; the Court may omit to mention the date and thereby the amount is payable from date of order unless directed otherwise.	The opinion cites this as a contrary view to Lachmani; it records the differing judicial approaches and treats the field as having conflicting authorities.
Makudum Ali v. Nargis Bano and Anr., (1983) I DMC 40 / 1982 Mat. L.R. 366	Held that there ought to be compelling reasons before depriving a wife of maintenance from date of application; High Court allowed maintenance from date of application where no such reason was given by lower courts.	The opinion cites this authority as support for awarding maintenance from the date of application where the wife made out a case; it is used to show courts have granted retrospective maintenance where appropriate.
Sampat Kumar v. Shanti Devi, 1986 MPLJ Note 4	Shows the Court has power to make allowance payable either from date of order or from date of application.	Used to support the proposition that Section 125(2) permits the Magistrate discretion to award maintenance from either date.
Jodhan Sahu v. Mst. Kulwantikher, 49 Cr.L.J. 323 (Pat.)	Principle that a party cannot be allowed to set up a wholly new case in revision that was not set up in pleadings.	Applied to hold that if the husband fails to contest the claim from the date of application in the written statement, he cannot later urge in revision that allowance should be only from the date of order.
Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1696	Section 465 — omissions, errors, or irregularities do not entail reversal unless they occasion a failure of justice; technicalities should not frustrate ends of justice.	Relied upon to caution against upsetting Magistrate's orders on mere technical omissions (such as lack of explicit reasons) where no failure of justice is shown.
1971 Pat.L.J.R. 666 (Patna High Court)	Held that Section 125 should be construed liberally and beneficially to the applicant when deciding the date from which maintenance is to be granted.	Cited in support of a liberal construction favoring claimants; used to caution against mechanical interference with Magistrate's retrospective awards.
Sunita Bhutani v. Satpal, 1985(2) Crimes 1007	Held that modification by Additional Sessions Judge without assigning reason, directing payment from date of order, was unwarranted; Magistrate's order granting maintenance from date of application was restored.	Used as an example where an appellate/revisional modification without reasons was reversed in favour of the claimant's retrospective award.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 945	Supreme Court decision establishing that the Magistrate can grant interim maintenance.	Cited to show that interim maintenance is available and relevant when considering from what date maintenance should run and whether interim relief was sought or granted.
Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 SC 984	Also cited as Supreme Court authority on the Magistrate's power to grant interim maintenance.	Used alongside Shah Bano to emphasise the availability of interim maintenance and its relevance to deciding retrospective awards.
S. A. Kaiser v. Noor Sahan, 1980 Cr.L.J. 611 (Cal.)	Where the wife supported herself and children by selling ornaments and collecting funds, Court awarded maintenance from the date of application.	Applied as an example where hardship during pendency justified retrospective maintenance from date of application.
Rosa Cracker v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Mad. 899	Principle that Magistrate cannot award maintenance from a date other than those authorised (i.e., not from a "third" date); no provision for awarding maintenance prior to date of application.	Used to support the conclusion that "date of order" cannot be stretched to mean a revisional court's date or some other date not contemplated by Section 125(2).
Abdul Rahim v. Mst. Amir Begum, AIR 1926 Lah. 532	Similar principle limiting the dates from which maintenance may be permitted under the statutory scheme.	Cited to support the restriction that maintenance cannot be awarded from a date prior to application or other than those provided by statute.
Enamul Haque v. Bibi Taimnissa, AIR 1967 Pat. 344	Reinforces that the Magistrate's discretion is confined to dates specified by statute, not to a third date.	Relied upon to conclude that the "date of order" is the Magistrate's order date and not the revisional court's date.
Janamma v. Kuthappa Panicker, AIR 1959 Ker. 366	Illustrates that the Court cannot award maintenance from the date of birth of a child (i.e., prior to application).	Used as authority that maintenance cannot be awarded prior to the date of application and that the statutory dates are exclusive.
Gafoor Ahmed v. Amnabi, Cr. R. No. 22 of 1983 (Indore) (7-8-1986)	The Revisional Court made the order retrospective without indicating reasons; the judgment suggested that Revisional Courts should record reasons if they make orders retrospective, and in that case remitted to the date of revisional order when no reasons were recorded.	The opinion critiques this approach: it holds that Gafoor Ahmed's case is not good law insofar as it directs payment from the date of the Revisional Court's order, and rejects carving out a third date not contemplated by Section 125(2).
(1965) Guj.LJ. 170 = (1965) 67 Punjab Law Reporter 263	Held that accumulation of arrears is no justification for writing them off; the wife's right to maintenance should not be frustrated by arrears arguments.	Cited to reject the argument that accumulated arrears justify denying retrospective relief.
Hemibai v. Kundibai, AIR 1940 Sind 222	Where the opposite party behaved badly and did not deserve sympathy, maintenance awarded from the date of application.	Used as authority supporting retrospective awards where conduct justifies such relief.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds from the plain language of Section 125(2) (reproduced in the opinion): "Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance." The court reasons as follows:

Plain reading: Section 125(2) expressly permits the Magistrate to make maintenance payable either from the date of the order or from the date of the application; nothing in the sub-section establishes a "normal rule" that the award must primarily be from the date of order and that awards from the date of application are an exception requiring special reasons.
On conflicting authorities: Earlier decisions (e.g., Lachmani v. Ramu and Mohd. Inayatulla Kha) that formulated a "normal rule" in favour of the date of order are characterized as inserting something into the sub-section that the Legislature did not intend; those decisions are therefore overruled by the present court to the extent they impose that requirement.
Discretion of Magistrate: The Magistrate has the discretion to direct payment from either date; the statutory text allows either approach without necessarily making one an exception.
Requirement to record reasons: Notwithstanding the discretionary power, the court holds that reasons must be recorded in either situation (whether the allowance is made payable from the date of application or from the date of order). This conclusion is grounded in Section 354(6) of the Code which requires every final order under Section 125 to contain points for determination, decisions thereon and reasons for the decisions. The date from which maintenance ought to be granted is a point for determination and therefore the decision on this point must be supported by reasons based on evidence and pleadings.
Effect of absence of reasons: Absence of recorded reasons does not automatically and mechanically result in maintenance being awarded from the date of order. The Revisional Court should examine the record and evidence; if the material on record suffices to support the Magistrate's order, the Revisional Court may supply reasons and refrain from interference. If materials are absent or insufficient, the Revisional Court may remit the case (with or without retaining seisin) as justice and early disposal require. Section 465 is invoked to caution against reversal for mere technical omissions unless there is a failure of justice.
Conduct and pleadings matter: If the husband does not contest in the written statement a claim for maintenance from the date of application by raising specific objections, he cannot later in revision be allowed to argue that allowance should only be from the date of order. A Revisional Court should be slow to entertain such belated objections.
Interim maintenance and practical considerations: The court notes the Supreme Court's decisions (e.g., Shah Bano and Savitri) establishing that Magistrates can grant interim maintenance, and that lack of interim orders makes it essential for the Magistrate to inquire into the source by which the wife and child sustained themselves during proceedings, the conduct of parties, and other relevant facts when deciding from which date maintenance should run.
Meaning of "date of order": The court holds that "date of order" in Section 125(2) refers to the date of the Magistrate's order and not to the date of the revisional court's order. The Magistrate has no power to fix a third date, and Revisional Courts likewise cannot (consistently with the statute) convert the "date of order" into the date of their own order. Decisions that treat revisional order date as the operative "date of order" are not good law insofar as they do so.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core rulings):

Recording of reasons is essential in either situation — whether the Magistrate directs maintenance from the date of application or from the date of the order (answer to question (i)).
The absence of recorded reasons does not automatically mean that maintenance must be awarded from the date of the order; lack of reasons is not an automatic ground for mechanical modification without reference to the material on record (answer to question (ii)).
"Date of order" in Section 125(2) means the date of the Magistrate's order and does not include the date of a revisional court's order; therefore a Revisional Court cannot convert the operative date into its own order-date (answer to question (iii)).

Implications for this case and generally (as stated in the opinion):

The court overruled earlier decisions (specifically those that treated the award from the date of order as the normal rule and required reasons as an exceptional burden to justify awards from the date of application) to the extent they conflict with the plain language of Section 125(2).
Revisional Courts should not mechanically set aside Magistrate's retrospective awards for want of reasons; they ought to examine the record, supply reasons where appropriate, or remit for further enquiry if the material is insufficient.
Decisions that direct payment from the date of a Revisional Court's order (i.e., creating a third operative date) are not consistent with Section 125(2) and are rejected as not good law by this court.
Practical directive in this matter: the record is to be placed before the Single Judge for disposal of the revisions (i.e., further determination in accordance with the principles stated in this opinion).
The opinion does not purport to set a new, restrictive procedural bar; rather it emphasises the twin duties of (a) Magistrates to record reasons for the date chosen, and (b) Revisional Courts to review records responsibly rather than employ a mechanical rule of automatic modification.

This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Krishna v. Dharam Raj

(ii) If so, whether the order must be modified, making it payable from the date of order?

(iii) Whether the 'date of order' in Section 125(2) means the date of order of the Revisional Court also"?

2. Smt. Krishnabai was married to non-applicant Dharamraj 16 years before the date of petition in accordance with Hindu Rites. She alleged that when Ku. Kalpana applicant No. 2 was in the womb, the non-applicant snatched her ornaments and forced her to return to her parents. After the birth of the child, she requested him to take her back, but he gave no response. The applicant with her child continues to stay with her parents. On 4-6-1982 the applicant and her child filed petition Under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month to the mother and Rs. 200/- to the child from the date of application. The non-applicant filed his written statement on 30-9-1982. The Trial Court allowed the application by order dated 24-4-1985, granting Rs. 200/- to the wife and Rs. 100/- to the child from the date of application.

3. The non-applicant filed revision on 5-6-1985 before the Sessions Court. The Revisional Court held that Ku. Kalpana was not born from the cohabitation of the non-applicant but this does not affect his liability to maintain her as also his illegitimate child. There being no proof that the applicant was 'living' in adultery, the maintenance could not be denied to her also. Thus, both were held entitled to maintenance from the non-applicant. The Revisional Court further herd that the normal rule is to award the maintenance from the date of order and if the maintenance is to be awarded from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. Since no reasons were given by the Magistrate, the award of the maintenance from the date of application, was set aside. The Trial Court's order was modified only to the extent that the maintenance to both was allowed from the date of order of the Trial Court i.e. 24-4-1985.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the non-applicant filed M. Cr. C. No. 1096/86 while the applicants filed revison challenging the findings as to the legitimacy of Ku. Kalpana, so also that part of the order which set aside the grant from the date of application.

5. Counsel for both parties were heard. Shri Surendra Singh, Advocate, appeared as amicus curiae.

6. The first question for decision is whether recording of reasons is sine qua non for awarding maintenance from the date of application. Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, runs as under : -

"Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance."

Even in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. V of 1908) the analogous provision Section 488(2) was the same as will be clear from the following : -

"Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance."

7. In Lachmani v. Ramu, Cr. Re. No. 405/82, decided on 10-11-1982, Shri M. D. Bhatt, J. held as under : -

"Sub-section (2) of. Section 125 shows that such allowance has to be normally payable, from the date of the order. In the alternative it could be equally ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. Reading the sub-section, it clearly shows that the grant of allowance has normally to be, from the date of the order alone; and in case, this normal rule is not intended to be followed, then the Court concerned, may well grant the allowance from the date of the application; but, such order should be backed by some reason, to support the same."

Shri R. C. Shrivastava, J. (Gwalior Bench), agreeing with view of Shri Bhatt, J., in Mohd. Inayatulla Kha v. Smt. Salma Bano, M. Cr. C. No. 97/83, decided on 2nd April, 1985, held as under :-

"There can be no dispute on the point that, ordinarily, payment of maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be ordered not from the date of the application but from the date of the order."

Thus, according to both the learned Judges, the normal rule is to award the maintenance from the date of order, but, if the award is from the date of application, it should be supported by reasons.

8. A contrary view of Shri U. L. Bhatt, J. in C.M. Manai v. Esther Pachikara and Ors., (1983) I DMC 409, 1981 Cr.LJ. N.O.C. 76 (Kerala), is that it is not necessary for the Court to record reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of petition. According to him, the Court may omit to mention the date from which the maintenance order is to take effect. In such case the amount is payable from the date of order. The Court may specifically direct the order to take effect from the date of the petition.

9. In Makudum Ali v. Nargis Bano and Anr., (1983) I DMC 40, it was held that there ought to be compelling reasons before the wife is deprived of maintenance from the date of the application. Since the two Courts failed to assign any such reason, the High Court set aside the order and allowed the maintenance from the date of application.

10. A plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 125 shows that the allowance is payable from the date of order where the Court omits to specify the date from which it is payable. The Court has power to make it payable from the date of application. See Sampat Kumar v. Shanti Devi, 1986 MPLJ Note 4. Thus, it is Open to the Court to allow the maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application. The view in Lachhmani's case (supra) that the grant of allowance has 'normally' to be, from the date of order and in case, this 'normal rule' is not intended to be followed the grant from the date of the application should be backed by some reason is nothing but to strain the plain words of the sub-section. It is an attempt to insert something more in the sub-section, which the Legislature never intended. We are unable to read in the sub-section laying down any normal rule to award from the date of order or that the grant from the date of application an exception. Both the aforesaid decisions do not lay down correct law, and must be overruled. It is the discretion of the Magistrate to direct payment either from the date of application or from the date of order.

11. Next question for decision is whether it is essential to record reasons, if the allowance is made payable from the date of application which implies reasons need not be recorded if the same is allowed from the date of order, In our opinion, reasons have to be recorded in both the situations. Section 354(6) of the Code provides that every final order Under Section 125 and certain other sections, shall contain points for determination, the decisions thereon and the reasons for the decisions. In a petition Under Section 125, the last point for determination is the date from which the maintenance ought to be granted. This depends on the pleadings in the case. The wife may claim the allowance from the date of application and the husband may deny it. In such a case the question has to be framed and decision on it has to be supported by reasons based on evidence led by both parties in support of their claims. Yet, in other case the husband may omit to deny the wife's claim from the date of application. In such cases, the question may be answered in wife's favour, on the short ground that there is no denial in the written statement and this may satisfy the requirement of Section 354(6). It is well settled that a party cannot be allowed to set up altogether a new case in revision, not set up in the pleadings. See Jodhan Sahu v. Mst. Kulwantikher, 49 Cr.L.J. 323 (Pat.). Therefore, where the husband fails to contest the claim from the date of application by raising specific objections in the written statement, he has no right to urge that the allowance should have been from the date of order and not from the date of application. A Revisional Court should be slow to entertain any objection against the Magistrate's order allowing the maintenance from the date of application, when the husband fails to contest the claim in the lower Court.

12. Next question for decision is what is the effect of non-supply of reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application? Section 465 of the Code provides that no omissions, errors, or irregularities in any proceeding will entail a reversal or alteration in appeal or in revision of any finding, sentence or order, unless such error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice. Mere techinicalities in respect of matter which are not vital or important or significant in a trial should not be allowed to frustrate the ends of justice Chittaranjan Das v. State Of West Bengal ., AIR 1963 SC 1696.

13. I came across several cases in which the Revisional Courts, following Lachhmani's case, on a finding as to the absence of reasons to award the maintenance from the date of application, modified the Magistrate's order mechanically directing payment only from the date of Magistrate's order. Such a short cut approach to dispose of the revision, cannot be called judicious. The Revisional Court is obliged to scan the evidence on record to satisfy itself and supply the reasons in support of the Magistrate's order and the order impugned may not call for any interference. If the material on record is absent or insufficient, it may resort to an order of remand with or without retaining seisin of the revision as the interest of justice and early disposal may demand. Patna High Court in 1971 Pat.L.J.R. 666 held that the section should be construed liberally and beneficially to the applicant while deciding the date from which the maintenance is to be granted. A blanket interference with the Magistrate's order in the manner aforesaid, may result in grave injustice and untold miseries to the claimants who may have managed to survive, during pendency of proceedings, on loans or by sale of ornaments etc. or subscriptions from relations and sympathisers. In Makudum v. Nargis Bano and Anr., 1982 Mat. L.R. 366, it was held that where the wife and the child had been neglected, they were entitled to maintenance from the date of application. Following this decision, in Sunita Bhutani v. Satpal, 1985(2) Crimes 1007, the modification by the Additional Sessions Judge without assigning reason, directing payment from the date of order, was held to be unwarranted and the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance from the date of application was restored.

14. The claimants have now been relieved by the decisions of Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 945 and Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 SC 984, laying down that the Magistrate can grant interim maintenance. In the absence of any such order, it is essential for the Magistrate to enquire the source from which the wife maintained herself and her child, if any, the conduct of parties during the proceedings and other relevant matter so as to properly decide the date from which the maintenance may be payable. Where the wife maintained herself and children by selling ornaments and collecting funds from the relations, the Court awarded maintenance from the date of application, S. A. Kaiser v. Noor Sahan, 1980 Cr.L.J. 611 Cal.

15. Next question for decision is whether the 'date of order' in Sub-section (2) of Section 125(2) could also be the date of revisional order? It is settled by catena of cases that maintenance can be granted either from the date of order of the Magistrate or from the date of application before him. The Magistrate has no discretion to allow it from a third date. There is also no provision for awarding maintenance prior to the date of application, Rosa Cracker v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Mad. 899, Abdul Rahim v. Mst. Amir Begum, AIR 1926 Lah. 532 and Enamul Haque v. Bibi Taimnissa, AIR 1967 Pat. 344. Thus the Court cannot award maintenance from the date of child's birth, Janamma v. Kuthappa Panicker, AIR 1959 Ker. 366.

16. In Gafoor Ahmed v. Amnabi, Cr. R. No. 22 of 1983 (Indore) decided on 7-8-1986, Shri V. D. Gyani, J. held as under : -

"So far as the question of making the order restrospective, the learned Sessions Judge in his order has not indicated any reason, for doing so. No doubt, it is within the discretion of the Court making the order of maintenance to award a sum either from the date of application or from the date on which the order is passed. In such matters, it is expected of the Revisional Court to take realistic view of the matter as the proceedings, at times, consume considerable time before an order is passed, accumulation of arrears of maintenance allowance, in case the order is made retrospective in effect, at times results in great deal of hardship. To avoid this, the Court should consider awarding of interim maintenance, which has now been held to be awardable by the Supreme Court, if such interim maintenance is not asked for and awarded, at least the Revisional Court should, in the event of making the order restrospective in effect, record reasons for doing so, lest it results in not merely a great deal of hardship to the husband but also deprives forums of granting, the grounds or reasons on the basis of which a retrospective maintenance order is passed. As in this case, no reasons are indicated, the ends of justice would sufficiently be met if the order is made effective from the date, it was made by the learned Sessions Judge."

17. In the aforesaid case (Gafoor Ahmed's case), the Trial Court had dismissed the application Under Section 125. The Revisional Court granted maintenance from the date of application. In order to avoid hardship to the husband due to accumulated arrears, Gyani, J. held that reasons must be recorded for granting maintenance from the date of application. Since no reasons were given by the Revisional Court, he directed the maintenance to be payable from the date of Revisional Court's order. Thus, he carved out a third date, not stipulated in Section 125(2), This was beyond the scope of Section 125(2).

18. With utmost respect to Gyani,. J., we are of the opinion that accumulation of large arrears is hardly a ground to deny the wife if she makes out a case for grant of maintenance from the date of application. We may refer to 1965 Guj.LJ. 170 = (1965) 67 Punjab Law Reporter 263, wherein it was held : -

"The fact that arrears have accumulated is no justification for writing them off. The argument that the petitioner-wife had somehow been managing to earn some amount to make her both ends meet during the interval is inconclusive. That the husband has all these years been neglecting the wife and has also been persisting in denying his marriage with her and their living together, in his efforts to avoid his liability, is also not irrelevant and may well be kept in view. It is not a matter of favour to the petitioner-wife, nor is she begging for any charity. It is her right which is being enforced by the Court and indulgence to the respondent-husband in this respect can only be at the cost of the petitioner-wife's right."

In Hemibai v. Kundibai, AIR 1940 Sind 222, the opposite party was found to have behaved badly, so as not to deserve any sympathy or consideration, it was held that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of application.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the 'date of order' in Section 125(2) means the date of order of the Magistrate and not the date of revisional order. Gafoor Ahmed's case so far it directs payment of allowance from the date of order of the Revisional Court, is not good law.

The answers to the questions referred are : -

(i) Recording of reasons is essential in either case namely when the maintenance is granted from the date of application or from the date of order.

(ii) In the absence of reasons, it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the "date of order".

(iii) The "date of order" in Section 125(2) means the date of Magistrate's order and not the revisional order.

The record be placed before the Single Judge for disposal of the revisions.

Krishna v. Dharam Raj

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Krishna v. Dharam Raj

Comments