Page 1

Page 1 of 10

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 2435 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3345 of 2013)

Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr.        …. Appellants

Versus

Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr.      …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by a wife and a minor  

daughter.   The  Family  Court  directed  payment  of  interim  

maintenance to wife and minor daughter @ Rs. 6,000/- per  

month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

Page 2

Page 2 of 10

1973  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Cr.P.C.’).   Interim  

maintenance was also ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu  

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘H.M. Act’)  

@  3,000/-  per  month  payable  to  both.   Eventually,  the  

Family Court disposed the maintenance proceedings finally  

by the Order dated 31.01.2009.  By this Order the Family  

Court  granted  maintenance  in  favour  of  daughter  @  Rs.  

5,000/- per month from the date of judgment.  The Family  

Court,  however,  took  the  view  that  the  appellant  –  wife  

would not be entitled to receive any amount more than the  

interim maintenance which she is receiving under the H.M.  

Act.

3. On the Appellant’s  application  for  maintenance made  

for  herself  and  her  children,  the  Family  Court  granted  

maintenance in the sum of Rs 5,000/- only to her daughter  

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The son was living with the father  

who was  maintaining  him and was  therefore  not  granted  

maintenance. The main ground for denying maintenance to

Page 3

Page 3 of 10

the Appellant was that she was found to have been working  

before her marriage and the Family Court was of the view  

that she could earn her living even now after the separation  

and therefore she was denied maintenance. This view did  

not find favour with the High Court, which noted that the  

Appellant had stopped working after her marriage and had  

given birth to two children. She had been only looking after  

the  family  and  had  therefore  stopped  working.  The  High  

Court  thus  reversed  the  Order  of  the  Family  Court  and  

granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. This was  

however granted from the date of the order.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the Order  

of the High Court but find it difficult to uphold the direction  

that the maintenance should be paid only from the date of  

the Order. The High Court has not given any reason why it  

has  not  directed  maintenance  from  the  date  of  the  

application for maintenance.

Page 4

Page 4 of 10

5. The relevant part of Section 125 reads as follows:

“125.  Order  for  maintenance  of  wives,  children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects  

or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his  legitimate  or  illegitimate  minor  child,  

whether married or not, unable to maintain itself,  

or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a  

married  daughter)  who  has  attained  majority,  

where such child is, by reason of any physical or  

mental  abnormality  or  injury unable  to maintain  

itself, or

(d) his  father  or  mother,  unable  to  maintain  

himself  or herself,  a Magistrate of the first class  

may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order  

such person to make a monthly allowance for the  

maintenance of  his  wife  or  such child,  father  or  

mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate  

thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as  

the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Page 5

Page 5 of 10

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father  

of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to  

make  such  allowance,  until  she  attains  her  

majority,  if  the  Magistrate  is  satisfied  that  the  

husband of such minor female child, if married, is  

not possessed of sufficient means:

Provided further that the Magistrate may, during  

the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly  

allowance  for  the  maintenance  under  this  sub-

section,  order  such  person  to  make  a  monthly  

allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife  

or such child, father or mother, and the expenses  

of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers  

reasonable, and to pay the same to such person  

as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application for the monthly  

allowance  for  the  interim  maintenance  and  

expenses of proceeding under the second proviso  

shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty  

days from the date of the service of notice of the  

application to such person.

Page 7

Page 7 of 10

“354  (6)  Language  and  contents  of   

judgment -  Every order under Section 117 or   

sub-section (2)  of  Section 138 and every final   

order made under Section 125, Section 145 or   

Section 147 shall contain the point or points for   

determination,  the  decision  thereon  and  the  

reasons for the decision.”  

Therefore, every final order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.  

[and other sections referred to in sub-section (c) of Section  

354]  must  contain  points  for  determination,  the  decision  

thereon and the reasons for such decision. In other words,  

Section 125 and Section 354 (6) must be read together.   

7. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, impliedly requires  

the  Court  to  consider  making  the  order  for  maintenance  

effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the  

relevant facts.  For good reason, evident from its order, the  

Court may choose either date. It is neither appropriate nor  

desirable that a Court simply states that maintenance should  

be paid from either the date of the order or the date of the  

application in matters of maintenance. Thus, as per Section

Page 8

Page 8 of 10

354 (6) of the Cr.P.C., the Court should record reasons in  

support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities. The  

purpose  of  the  provision  is  to  prevent  vagrancy  and  

destitution in society and the Court must apply its mind to  

the options having regard to the facts of the particular case.

8. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak,1 this  

Court  dealt  with  the  question  as  to  from  which  date  a  

Magistrate  may  order  payment  of  maintenance  to  wife,  

children  or  parents.   In  Shail  Kumar  Devi,  this  Court  

considered a catena of decisions by the various High Courts,  

before arriving at the conclusion that it was incorrect to hold  

that,  as  a  normal  rule,  the  Magistrate  should  grant  

maintenance only from the date of the order and not from  

the date of the application for maintenance. It is, therefore,  

open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date  

of  application.  The Court  held,  and we agree,  that  if  the  

Magistrate intends to pass such an order, he is required to  1

(2008) 9 SCC 632; Para’s 39 - 41.  

Page 9

Page 9 of 10

record  reasons  in  support  of  such  Order.  Thus,  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.  

9.    In the case before us, the High Court has not given  

any reason for not granting maintenance from the date of  

the application.  We are of the view that the circumstances  

eminently justified grant of maintenance with effect from the  

date  of  the  application  in  view  of  the  finding  that  the  

Appellant had worked before marriage and had not done so  

during her marriage. There was no evidence of her income  

during the period the parties lived as man and wife.  We,  

therefore reverse the Order of the High Court in this regard  

and  direct  that  the  respondent  shall  pay  the  amount  of  

maintenance found payable from the date of the application  

for  maintenance.   As  far  as  maintenance  granted  under

Page 10

Page 10 of 10

Section 24 of the H.M. Act by the Courts below is concerned,  

it shall remain unaltered.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  

…................………………..J.                                                             [J. CHELAMESWAR]

…............………………………J.                              [S.A. BOBDE]

New Delhi, November 19th, 2014