Trial Court Not Barred From Granting Maintenance From Date Of Order If Reasons Exist For Doing So: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not completely blocked the discretionary power of the trial court in granting maintenance from the date of order in the case there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same.

For context, in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Court, in 2020, issued guidelines on payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters. In that case, it was held that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance.

With this, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by the wife challenging an order of the Saharanpur Family Court passed under Section 125 CrPC directing her husband to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to his wife (the revisionist) from the date of the order (November 19, 2022).

The order of the Saharanpur Court was challenged on two grounds, the first being that the application for maintenance was filed on September 1, 2020, and came to be decided after a gap of almost two years, hence, the court was not justified in granting maintenance from the date of the order as per Apex Court judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).

The second ground was that the amount of maintenance is quite deficient considering the monthly earning of her husband, who is presently posted as Sub Inspector.

Supporting the order of the Family court, the respondent no.2/husband submitted that he had to spend a hefty amount of money to sort out the matter which had arisen between the real brother of respondent no.2, his wife and the revisionist as his wife/revisionist had developed illicit relationship with his real brother, which created problems between his brother and his brother's wife and therefore, she sought divorce from his husband, in which compensation/alimony to the tune of Rs.14 lakh was awarded and respondent no.2 being an elder brother paid Rs.9 lakh from his own account and remaining Rs.5 lakh from other means.

Against this backdrop, it was pointed out that there was enough evidence before the trial court to demonstrate that it was the husband who became a victim of the circumstances around him and that his wife was not entitled to any maintenance amount.

It was further argued that even if it is presumed that she is entitled to the same, the amount of maintenance decided and the date of payment is perfectly justified as the husband had been able to prove that financial burden in the aftermath of the criminal case and the civil case of divorce fell upon him being earning elder in the family.

Additionally, it was pointed out that it is he who is taking care of his only daughter.

Taking into account all these circumstances, the HC found the order of the Family Court to be justified as it found that the Court below had given cogent reasons for deciding the quantum of maintenance and grant thereof from the date of the order.

"The trial court has in the background of financial liabilities and family responsibilities falling upon him has taken a realistic view in the matter. In my view, the powers have been applied in a judicious manner calling for no interference in the order," the Court observed as it dismissed the criminal revision plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist: Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi, Pradeep Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Keshari Nath Tripathi, Nidhi Singh

Case title - Ranjeeta @ Ravita vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1165 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 149

Click Here To Read/Download Order