IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 97/2008 Rakesh Kumar Mahendra …….Revisionist Versus Smt. Devki Mahendra ……Respondent Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the respondent. 28th September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Revision, the judgment and order dated 9.5.2008, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun has been assailed. The said judgment was passed in case no. 446/2002, Smt. Devki Mahendra v. Rakesh Kumar Mahendra, claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that Smt. Devki was wedded with Rakesh Kumar Mahendra on 28.11.1996 as per Hindu customs and rituals. After passing of a couple of years blissfully, differences cropped up between them, and Smt. Devki started living separately. It is also pertinent to mention that both the parties were divorcees from their respective earlier counterparts before their marriage was solemnized. 3. Smt. Devki claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was allowed and maintenance to the tune of ` 2500/- per month from the date of application, which was moved sometime in the year 2002, was awarded to her. During the pendency of that petition, the court also awarded interim maintenance to Smt. Devki from her husband. 2 4. The sole contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the court below has committed an error by awarding the maintenance with effect from the date of moving the application, while as per the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, it ought to have been awarded with effect from the date of order. Fortiori, it has also been contended that this petition was pleaded so reluctantly by the respondent that the same was permitted to be dismissed in default on 11.9.2003, and it could be restored for hearing on merits on 3.8.2005 i.e. almost after little bit less than two years. So, Smt. Devki should not be permitted to claim the maintenance for at least this two years’ period. 5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, is not worthy of discussion here. 6. Undoubtedly, Section 125 CrPC envisages the grant of maintenance since the date of order, if otherwise no other order is made, meaning thereby that if the Court so orders then the maintenance can also be granted from the date of application, as has been done by the court below in the instant case. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that for almost two years, the proceedings before the court below could not proceed due to laches on the part of Smt. Devki, is also not acceptable for the reason that no sooner the petition was dismissed in default on 11.9.2003, the application was moved by Smt. Devki for its restoration in October, 2003 i.e. in the very next month. But for some reason or the other, the court could not dispose of her application and the same could be decided only on 3.8.2005. 7. As mentioned above, Smt. Devki is living separately. An alone lady, living in the said circumstances, faces a number 3 of constraints in her day-to-day life, and it is not easy for her to attend the court of law, adjudicating her litigation, against a dominant man, who is posted in that very District Court, where her maintenance petition was being heard. It can significantly be noted here that the revisionist Rakesh Kumar Mahendra is a Class III employee in the District Court, Dehradun. In these circumstances, the plight and constraint of Smt. Devki can easily be assessed, and if her restoration application remained pending for almost two years, then it is no surprise, and no fault for the same can be attributed to Smt. Devki. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent has shown through the information received by the respondent under the Right to Information Act that the present salary of the revisionist-husband is ` 23239/- per month as per the salary details for the month of June, 2011 and the revisionist is due to be superannuated on 20.11.2011. He has accumulated ` 8,25,923/- in his Provident Fund Account. 9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that the maintenance @ ` 2500/- per month, awarded to Smt. Devki, is very meager amount, considering the rate of inflation and dearness of articles of food, clothes, etc. The court below has adjudicated the matter very appropriately and it has rightly awarded the maintenance from the date of making the application. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this revision has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 5.6.2008 stands vacated. 11. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 28.9.2011 Prabodh