Maintenance From Date of Petition Has To Be Ordered When Husband Is Capable But Neglects to Pay: Andhra Pradesh HC
|The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that if the wife and child are unable to maintain themselves and the husband, despite having sufficient means, refused or neglected to pay maintenance, it is appropriate to order payment from the date of the petition.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Revision against the order that changed the date of payment of maintenance.
The bench of Justice V R K Krupa Sagar observed, “…when once it found that the wife and the child are unable to maintain themselves and the husband is capable of maintaining himself and having sufficient means, refused or neglected to pay maintenance, ordering payment of maintenance from the date of petition filed is what normally sounds correct.”
Advocate Arrabolu Sai Naveen appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
A Domestic Violence Case was filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by a married woman and her minor child. They sought interim measures under Section 23, and the trial Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 20k and Rs. 10k per month to the petitioners from the date of filing the petition.
The respondent/husband appealed and the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the maintenance amounts but changing the start date for payments to a date two years from the date of filing of the Petition. Aggrieved by the modification, the woman and child filed a Revision.
The Court perused Section 125 CrPC and said that the provision allows the deciding Court to use its discretion to grant the maintenance from either the date of the order or from the date of the application and that discretion normally has to be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances as were brought on record by the parties.
However, the Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh V. Neha and observed, “their Lordships laid down that law stating that awarding maintenance from the date of application was in the interest of Justice and fair play.”
Relying on the above judgment the Court said that the revision petitioners rightly sought interference of the Court to rectify the error committed by the Appellate Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Revision.
Cause Title: Palaparthi Shebha and Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: APHC010603142023)