Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.@mdashThe second respondent filed an application under section 125 , Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the petitioner. The application was registered as Case No. 30 of 2006. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate on the ground that there was a divorce between the parties on 1 July, 2004; that the second respondent is refusing to live with the petitioner for no justifiable cause; that she is well-educated and thus able to maintain herself; that the petitioner is earning meagre income and thus the application for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month is liable to be rejected. The learned Magistrate allowed the application by an order dated 17 June, 2011 and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the second respondent @ Rs. 2500/- per month, since the date of the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 349 of 2011, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24 April, 2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights but the second respondent is not ready to live with the petitioner and, as such, there was no justification to award maintenance in her favour. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a small clinic in a rented accommodation and has got meagre income. Consequently, award of maintenance @ Rs. 2500/- per month and that too from the date of application, without assigning any special reason, is wholly illegal.
3. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, has held that the second respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner under sections 498A , 307 , 323 , 504 , 506 , IPC read with section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the said proceedings are pending. The petitioner is on bail. In such circumstances, there are valid reasons in favour of the second respondent for refusing to live with the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded in this regard by the learned Magistrate.
4. The learned Magistrate after considering the statement of the witnesses and the other documentary evidence on record has noted that the petitioner admitted having a BUMS degree and that he is running a nursing home in a rented accommodation at Roorkee. The learned Magistrate has further held that the petitioner in order to deprive the second respondent of her right to claim maintenance had transferred his land to his father. The transfer, it has been held, appears to be a mala fide one and to defeat the right of the second respondent to claim maintenance. The learned Magistrate had concluded that the petitioner is having sufficient wealth, so as to part with a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month towards maintenance to the second respondent. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate and which have been affirmed by the Revisional Court are pure findings of fact and do not call for any interference.
5. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate had erred in granting maintenance from the date of the application, it may be noted that the learned Magistrate has held that in the past, although the second respondent is living separately, the petitioner had not paid any maintenance to her. In such view of the matter, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the petitioner should be directed to pay maintenance from the date of the application. The direction issued by the learned Magistrate is well within his jurisdiction.
In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
"47. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. 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 from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect.
6. No other submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
