JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS &ANR.versusHIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS &ANR.

                        [2014] 13 S.C.R. 574


A             JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS &ANR.
                                  v.
          HIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS &ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 2435 of 2014)
B
                       NOVEMBER 19, 2014
           [J. CHELAMESWAR ANDS.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss. 125 and 354(6)
C - Grant of maintenance - Effective date - Held: s. 125
  enables the court to grant maintenance from the date of the
  order or from the date of the application - Said final order
  must contain reasons for such decision- On facts, High Court
  granted maintenance to wife from the date of order, without
D giving any reason for not granting maintenance from the date
  of application - Circumstances justified grant of maintenance
  with effect from the date of application for maintenance - Thus,
  order passed by the High Court set aside.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
        HELD: Section 125 Cr.P.C. impliedly requires the
  Court to consider making the order for maintenance
  effective from either of the two dates, the date of the order
  or from the date of the application, having regard to the
F relevant facts. Every final order uls.125 [and other
  sections referred to in sub-section (c) of Section 354]
  must contain points for determination, the decision
  thereon and the reasons for such decision. On facts, the
  High Court did not give any reason for not granting
G maintenance from the date of the application. The
  circumstances eminently justified grant of maintenance
  with effect from the date of the application. The order of
  the High Court is set aside andthe respondent is directed
  to pay the amount of maintenance found payable from
H
                               574
      JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS v. HIRENBHAI                 575
              RAMESHCHANDRAVYAS

the date of the application for maintenance. [Paras 6, 7,    A
9][578-F-H; 579-G-H; 580-A-B]
     Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak
     (2008) 9 SCC 632: 2008 (11) SCR 386-referred
     to.
                                                             B
                    Case Law Reference:
     2008 (11) SCR 386    referred to         Para 8
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 2435 of 2014.                                     c
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28-10-2010 of the
High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Criminal Revision No.
378 of 2009.
     l.C. Sharma, Daya Krishan Sharma, Hemant Mudgil,        D
Advs. for the Appellants.
     Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. Leave granted.                       E
      2. This appeal has been preferred by a wife and a minor
daughter. The Family Court directed payment of interim
maintenance to wife and minor daughter@ Rs. 6,000/- per
month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, F
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). Interim
maintenance was also ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'H.M. Act')
@ 3,000/- per month payable to both. Eventually, the Family
Court disposed the maintenance proceedings finally by the G
Order dated 31.01.2009. By this Order the Family Court
granted maintenance in favour of daughter@ Rs. 5,000/- per
month from the date of judgment. The Family Court, however,
took the view that the appellant-wife would not be entitled to
                                                              H
576        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A receive any amount more than the interim maintenance which
  she is receiving under the H.M.Act.
         3. On the Appellant's application for maintenance made
  for herself and her children, the Family Court granted
B maintenance in the sum of Rs 5,000/- only to her daughter under
  Section 125 Cr.P.C. The son was living with the father who
  was maintaining him and was therefore not granted
  maintenance. The main ground for denying maintenance to
  the Appellant was that she was found to have been working
c before her marriage and the Family Court was of the view that
  she could earn her living even now after the separation and
  therefore she was denied maintenance. This view did not find
  favour with the High Court, which noted that the Appellant had
  stopped working after her marriage and had given birth to two
o children. She had been only looking after the family and had
  therefore stopped working. The High Court thus reversed the
  Order of the Family Court and granted maintenance in the sum
  of Rs. 5,000/-. This was however granted from the date of the
  order.
E
        4. We have given our anxious consideration to the Order
  of the High Court but find it difficult to uphold the direction that
  the maintenance should be paid only from the date of the Order.
  The High Court has not given any reason why it has not directed
F maintenance from the date of the application for mainte:nance.
          5. The relevant part of Section 125 reads as follows:
          "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and
          parents.
G         (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or
          refuses to maintain-
          (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
         (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether
H        married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
 JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS v. HIRENBHAI                     577
 RAMESH CHANDRA VYAS [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married A
daughter) who has attained majority, where such child
is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or
injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or
                                                            8
herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of
such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a
monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such
child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such
Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person c
as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a
minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate
is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, D
if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the
pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance
for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such E
person to make a monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother,
and the expenses of such proceeding which the
Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same
to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time F
direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly
allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as G
possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date
of the service of notice of the application to such person.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-

                                                             H
578         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          (a) "minor'' means a person who, under the provisions of
           the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not
           to have attained his majority;
           (b) "wife" irJcludes a woman who has been divorced by,
           or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has
 B
           not remarried.
           (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
           maintenance and expenses· of proceeding shall be .
           payable from the date of the order; or, if so ordered, from
 c         the date of the application for maintenance or interim
           maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case
           maybe."
            6. The provision expressly enables the Court to grant
      maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the
 0
      application. However, Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. must be
      construed with sub-section (6) of Section 354 of the Cr.P.C.
      which reads thus:
           "354 (6) Language and contents ofjudgment- Every
 E         order under Section 117 or sub-section (2) of Section
           138 and every final order made under Section 125,
           Section 145 or Section 147 shall contain the point or
           points for determination, the decision thereon and the
           reasons for the decision."
 F
        Therefore, every final order under Section 125 of the
   Cr.P.C. [and other sections referred to in sub-section (c) of
   Section 354] must contain points for determination, the
   decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. In other
 G words, Section 125 and Section 354 (6) must be read together.
        7. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, impliedly
   requires the Court to consider making the order for
   maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having
   regard to the relevant facts. For good reason, evident from its
 H                  •
          JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS v. HIRENBHAI                 579
          RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

order, the Court may choose either date. It is neither A
appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply states -that
maintenance should be paid from either the date of the order
or the date of the application in matters of maintenance. Thus,
as per Section 354 (6) of the Cr.P.C., the Court should record
reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both B
eventualities. The purpose of the provision is to prevent
vagrancy and destitution in society and the Court must apply
its mind to the options having regard to the facts of the particular
case.
                                                                  c
        8. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, 1
this Court dealt with the question as to from which date a
Magistrate may order payment of maintenance to wife, children
or parents. In Shail Kumar Devi, this Court considered a
catena of decisions by the various High Courts, before arriving D
at the conclusion that it was incorrect to hold that, as a normal
rule, the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the
date of the order and not from the date of the application for
maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award
maintenance frol\1 the date of application. The Court held, and E
we agree, that if the Magistrate intends to pass such an order,
he is required to record reasons in support of such Order. Thus,
such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the Order,
or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for
maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance F
from the date of the application, express order is necessary.
     9. In the case before us, the High Court has not given
any reason for not granting maintenance from the date of the
application. We are of the view that the circumstances G
eminently justified grant of maintenance with effect from the
date of the application in view of the finding that the Appellant
had worked before marriage and had not done so during her
1
    (2008) g sec 632; Para's 39 - 41.
580          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A marriage .. There was no evidence of her income during the
  period the parties lived as man and wife. We, therefore reverse
  the Order of the High Court in this regard and direct that the
  respondent shall pay the amount of maintenance found payable
  from the date of the application for maintenance. As far as
B maintenance granted under Section 24 of the H.M. Act by the
  Courts below is concerned, it shall remain unaltered.
            10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.


      Nidhi Jain                                      Appeal allowed.