JUDGMENT
A.S. Tripathi, J.
1. These two cases arise out of the same order. They, being connected, are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal Revision No. 178/91 shall be the leading case.
2. Facts of the case are that non-petitioner Pramod Kumar Agrawal is the husband of petitioner Smt. Chandraprabha Devi and Kumari Jyoti is their daughter. A petition was moved for maintenance before the Magistrate. After examining the evidence on record the petition was allowed and the non-petitioner Kumari Jyoti was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of order.
3. A revision was filed against that order and the Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 5.8.1991 modified the order of the learned Magistrate and Rs. 150/- per month was allowed as maintenance for the daughter Kumar Jyoti. The wife Smt. Chandraprabha Devi was herself earning, being a nurse in Govt. hospital. The Revisional Court however directed that the maintenance shall be paid from the date of the application.
4. Two points were raised in these revisions that the order passed by the Revisional Court allowing the maintenance from the date of the application was not justified. This point was raised by Pramod Kumar Agrawal the husband in his revision. On the other hand, the petitioners Smt. Chandraprabha Devi and Kumari Jyoti have raised a plea in their revision that the reduction of the maintenance amount from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 150/- per month was not justified and no reasons have been given for the same.
5. On the first point, the direction was given by the two Courts below that the maintenance shall be paid from the date of the application. Reliance was placed on the case of Smt. Krishna Jain v. Dharam Raj fain, 1991 JLJ 405 in which a Revision Bench of this Court had held that even if no reasons are given for giving directions for the payment of maintenance from the date of the application, it is not an illegality and on mere technical grounds, the same could not be quashed and reversed. It was observed in that case that:–
“The first question for decision is whether recording of reasons is sine qua non for awarding maintenance from the date of the application. Section 465 of the Code provides that no omissions, error 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 technicalities 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”.
5. In the present case, the Revisional Court had reduced the amount of maintenance to be given to the child from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 150/- but directed the same to be paid from the date of application which was necessary in the circumstances of the case. It was in view of the fact that it was maintenance of a child who was unable to maintain herself, and her mother who was getting a meagre salary was also not able to maintain her child.
6. Accordingly, on the ground of specific reasons having not been given by the Revisional Court while granting maintenance from the date of application, it does not call for any interference by this Court. The Revisional Court was fully justified in granting the maintenance from the date of the application and the same could not be quashed or inteferred with in a short-cut manner. Simply because specific reasons have not been given in the order of Revisional Court directing the maintenance from the date of the application, particularly when the maintenance of a child is concerned. The Patna High Court in 1971 LJR 666, observed 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 inteference with the Magistrate’s order in the manner aforesaid, may result in grave injustice and untold miseries to claimants who may have managed to survive during pendency of proceedings, on loans or sale of ornaments etc. or subscription from relations and sympathisers.”
7. In the case of Makudum v. Nargis Bano and Anr., 1982 Md. 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.
8. Similar view was expressed in the case of Sunita Bhasim v. Satpal, 1985 (2) Crimes 1007.
9. In the present case, there was a question of maintenance of a child of below 10 years who was unable to maintain herself. The income of the mother was also meagre. Therefore, in view of the cases referred above, it was always appropriate to direct maintenance from the date of the application. Therefore, this contention raised by the applicant Pramod Kumar Agrawal is not tenable and is rejected.
10. In another revision petitions Smt. Channdraprabha and Kumari Jyoti have raised a plea that the appropriate amount of Rs. 250/- per month was already granted by the learned Trial Magistrate. The same was reduced to Rs. 150/- by the Revisional Court without assigning any reason. The Revisional Court had given its reason that for the maintenance of the child only Rs. 150/- was sufficient in the circumstances of the case. The Revisional Court had taken this view taking into consideration the earning of the non -petitioner Pramod Kumar Agrawal, who was a junior practising lawyer having standing of 4 to 5 years. It is a common knowledge that a junior practising lawyer doesn’t have sufficient income to maintain himself. The learned Revisional Court was, therefore, justified in reducing the amount of maintenance to Rs. 150/- taking into consideration the meagre income of the non-petitioner Pramod Kumar Agrawal. It is not disputed that the non-petitioner Pramod Kumar Agrawal is a practising lawyer of 4-5 years standing at the time of passing of the order. His income was hardly sufficient to maintain himself and, therefore, the Revisional Court was justified in reducing the amount from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 150/- per month. This finding recorded by the Revisional Court is based on the common knowledge of the plight of a junior practising lawyer in District Courts. At this stage, in this revision, therefore, no inteference is called for even in the order passed for reduction of the amount to Rs. 150/- p.m. Therefore, this revision is also not maintainable and is rejected accordingly.
11. Accordingly, both the revisions have no merit and the same are dismissed as such.
12. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of Criminal Misc. Case No. 170/91 which shall govern the disposal of that case too.