JUDGMENT
V.A. Mohta, J.
1. Shrimati Sharda wife of Ganpantrao Kadu the applicant in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- from the date of application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction maintained the said order against her husband Ganpantrao Kadu-the non-applicant, so far the liability and quantum is concerned but modified the order by directing payment only from the date of the order, on the grounds that (i) normal rule under sub-section (2) of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to order payment from the date of order; (ii) no reasons are recorded for deviating from the normal rule (iii) direction to pay arrears would amount to punishment to the husband and such a course should be avoided.
2. Application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was filed on 25th May, 1984 and was decided on 6th February, 1987. Maintenance has been quantified at Rs. 200/- per month. The findings of fact affirmed by the Sessions Judge are (i) the marriage was solemnized on 2nd July, 1979; (ii) within three months of the marriage there was demand for money from the wife’s father by the husband’s father; (iii) the wife did not conceive for some years; (iv) she was being ill-treated throughout; (v) there was miscarriage around 17th February, 1984; (vi) she was taken to father’s house for treatment on 1st March, 1984; (vii) husband had a second marriage with Padma wife of Zingraji who delivered a child on 28th February, 1985; (viii) husband neither went to her father’s place to fetch his wife nor to enquire about her health after abortion; (ix) the husband completely neglected to maintain the wife who had even justification to stay separately; (x) husband had ancestral property such as agricultural fields, cattlesheds, was running a dairy and his income was not less than Rs. 20,000/ per annum : (xi) father of the wife is a poor primary school teacher who spent for the treatment of his daughter.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed the above circumstances, and in the penultimate paragraph observed that all show of affection in these proceedings towards the wife by the husband was make believe, his offer to maintain the wife was not genuine and was as after thought and directed maintenance from the date of application.
4. Shri Sudhir Moharir, the learned Counsel for the applicant, seems to be right in making a contention that neither the language of section 125(2) Criminal Procedure Code nor the proved circumstances on record warranted interference with the discretion of the learned Magistrate in awarding the maintenance from the date of application. Section 125(2) Criminal Procedure Code reads thus :
“Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.”
Considering the object behind section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, I find it difficult to take a view that the law mandates payment of maintenance allowance normally from the date of the order and payment from the date of application is made only exceptional for reasons to be recorded in writing. In this connection useful reference may be made to the following observations with which I respectfully concur-in the case of Mani v. Gether, 1980 Perais Law Times 969 :
“In interpreting this section we must bear in mind the purpose of the provisions of Chapter IX relating to maintenance. The purpose is to prevent to control vagrancy and destitution in the cases of wives, children and parents, When a destitute wife, child or parent approaches the Criminal Court and satisfies the Court of the existence of the conditions for passing an order under section 125 of the Code. In the normal course, the applicant must get maintenance from the date of the petition that is, the date on which he approached the Court. There is no provision in Chapter IX of the Code, which takes away the power of the Court to direct payment of maintenance from the date of the petition: but, on the other hand such power is recognised or reserved under section 125(2) of the Code. A Court may omit to mention date from which the maintenance order is to take effect. The Court may specifically direct the order to take effect from the date of the petition. The Court may also direct order to take effect from the date of the order. Sub-section (2) of section 125 of the Code means only that where Court has not specifically directed that the order shall take effect from the date of the petition or where the order is silent on the point, it shall be payable from the date of the order. It cannot be said that whenever a Court gives a specified direction either way, it must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It is open to the Court to take either view and in corporate it in the judgment. Considering the purpose of the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code and the specific object they seek to achieve the Court has full discretion to direct that the allowance is payable from the date of the petition.”
It is pertinent to notice that taking into consideration the object behind section 126, the Supreme Court has held that there is inherent power even to make an interim order for payment of maintenance till the disposal of the application under section 125. See Savitri Govind v. Govind Singh, 1965 Mh.L.J. 977.
5. In the instant case it is established that there was no justification whatsoever for the husband to neglect to maintain his wife, the husband was a monied person, the wife depended solely on the mercy of father who was himself a poor primary school teacher, the husband had behaved very badly with the wife throughout and had even married second wife. On the toe of it, he has given a false offer to maintain the wife. If in this background the learned Magistrate has exercised the discretion vested in him in favour of granting maintenance allowance from the date of the application, it is difficult to see any scope in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the said discretion. Indeed, in situations like this, maintenance allowance can be refused from the date of application only for compelling reasons. Though the background is somewhat different, more or less the same approach has been adopted in the case of Makhdum Ali v. Naris Bano, 1983 Cri. L.J. 11 by the Delhi High Court. This has been the consistent approach of various Courts since long. One such old case is Smt. Hamibai v. Kundibai, A.I.R. 1940 Sind 222. In that case revisional jurisdiction was used for the first time to direct maintenance from the date of application. The reasons which weighed with the Court were that neither husband nor any member of his family deserved any sympathy or consideration because they had behaved badly with the wife.
6. The statute nowhere mandates recording of special reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application. There is no scope to import this legal requirement. Even this so called lacuna did not exist in the present case. Reasons were not only apparent from the undisputed positions but are indeed mentioned.
7. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of Mu. Lachhmani v. Rahi, Criminal Revision No. 405 of 1982 decided on 10-11-1982 reported in 1983 Crimes 500 to which my pointed attention was drawn even by Shri Chaudhari, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant-husband. The background of that decision is entirely different. The status of the non applicant was poor and salary meagre. There is no finding about the bad conduct of the non applicant. Maintenance was claimed by minor daughter against father who was disputing the paternity. No doubt, it is held that, “grant of allowance has normally to be from the date of 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.” If the Madhya Pradesh High Court meant to say by the above observations that maintenance allowance can be granted from the date of application only for special reasons to be recorded in writing. I have my respectful dissent with the said approach. That the ratio of that decision does not apply to the present case is an altogether different question.
8. Under the circumstances, the present application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Wardha is quashed and set aside and that of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha dated 6-2-1987 is restored.