Smt. Asha Sharma vs Judge and Another Family Courts

Sudhir Narain, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 4.1.1995 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Meerut. The facts in brief are that the opposite party No. 2, filed a petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), against the applicant, on 2.11.1992. The applicant filed an application u/s 24 of the Act, claiming maintenance and litigation expenses. The said application was allowed by the Judge Family Court, Meerut, on 9th July, 1993, directing the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 1200/- as litigation expenses.

Subsequently, the applicant filed an application (17-D), stating that the opposite party No. 2 has not paid the amount as directed by the Court on 9th July, 1993 and he may be directed to pay the said amount. On 22.11.1994 the Court passed an order staying the further proceedings and directing the opposite party to file reply to the application filed by the applicant within 10 days and fixed 4th January, 1995, for orders.

On 4th January, 1995, the applicant filed an application stating that the Court had passed the order on 9th July, 1993 for awarding maintenance to the applicant but the Court should have directed to pay the amount of maintenance w.e.f. 2nd November, 1992. On the said application, the Court passed an order on 4.1.1995, indicating that in the order dated 9th July, 1993, the date was not specified indicating from which date the amount for maintenance was to be paid to the applicant. It clarified that the amount of maintenance was to be paid from 9th July 1993, the date when the order was passed awarding the maintenance to the applicant. This order has challenged in this Revision.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant should be awarded maintenance from the date, opposite party No. 2 filed an application for divorce u/s 13 of the Act.

Section 24 of the Act, does not specify that the amount of maintenance which is awarded under the said provision is to be paid from the date, the petition for divorce is filed.

It is for the Court to consider this circumstance and it may award the maintenance from the date the application is filed or from the date the order is passed. It is discretion of the Court, after taking into consideration various facts. The order was passed on 9th July, 1993 and the applicant was awarded maintenance. It is on 4th January, 1995, the applicant filed an application requesting for specifying the date in the order dated 9th July, 1993, the date from which the amount of maintenance is to be paid to the applicant. The Court has specified that the applicant is entitled for maintenance w.e.f. 9th July, 1993, the date on which the order was passed awarding the maintenance to the applicant. The order does not suffer from illegality.

The second submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party No. 2 has not paid the amount of maintenance. The applicant has already filed an application before the Court indicating that she has not received the amount of maintenance. The Court has already passed the order dated 22nd November, 1994, directing the opposite party No. 2 to file reply to the said application and stayed further proceedings in the matter till the amount is paid. There is no reason that the Court will not consider this aspect of the matter.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant Revision and it is, accordingly dismissed.