Radhey Shyam vs Vijai Luxmi & Anr.

Giridhar Malviya, J.

Heard Sri W. H. Khan learned counsel for the applicant and perused the orders of the two courts below, Sri Khan contended that the trial court had recorded a finding of fact which could not be interferred with by the revisional court. I do not agree with this contention of Sri Khan, but in this case I have no hesitation to add that the finding of the Magistrate that in the absence of any first information report by her that she was set on fire by her inlaws, her statement that she had been burnt by them could not be believed, is totally perverse. It is not disputed that on her getting burnt she was admitted for her treatment at the Hallot Hospital, Kanpur. Thus the factum of her getting burnt was never ruled out. Accordingly the revisional court on the reasons recorded by it, was justified in reversing the order of the Magistrate and awarding maintenance to the wife.

This revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Sri Khan then contended that the applicant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 250/ per month maintenance from the date of application moved under Section 125, Cr. P. C. The revisional court had directed the entire arrears of the maintenance to be paid within a period of two months from the date of its judgment i.e., 191189. However, when this revision was presented, the High Court had directed this matter to be listed for admission after notice to the opposite party who has also put in appearance in the High Court. It is now after about two years that the revision has come up for admission. By an order dated 31290 this Court had stayed the recovery of a sum of maintenance in excess of Rs. 100/per month in pursuance of the order dated 19111987 of IInd Addl. Sessions Judge. The realization of the entire amount up to 19111990 as also been stayed. The position that, therefore, emerges is that the applicant has now to pay the entire arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/ per month from the date of application up to 19111990 as also the remaining sum of Rs. 150/per month from 19111990 up to this date of passing of this order dismissing the revision by the High Court today. The entire amount is thus certaintly going to be comparatively a big amount. Considering this aspect of the matter, 1 direct that the applicant shall henceforth continue to deposit the sum of Rs. 250/ per month towards the future maintenance by 10th of each of the succeeding months the first such installment of Rs. 250 for the month of September, 1992 to be payable by 10th of October 1992. This will take care of the future maintenance from the month of September, 1992. So far as the arrears up to 3181992 is concerned the applicant may deposit the arrears in the installments of Rs. 2000 every quarter the first quarterly deposit to be also made by 10101992 and thereafter on 1011993, 104 1993, 1071993 on and so forth in future till the arrears are cleared up. If the applicant continues to deposit the maintenance amount in the manner provided hereinbefore any coercive measure to recover the amount of arrears shall not be taken against the applicant. Should, however, he may fail to deposit the amount for any quarter or any of the monthly instalments of maintenance as has been indicated above, the amount of maintenance will become recoverable even after adopting coercive measures for its realization.

With the observations made above, this revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.