t IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEl TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 879 OF 2023 Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the orders passed in MC 4 of 2021 dated 11.05.2023 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, and modify the orders granting the maintenance from the date of order 11.05.2023 and direct the respondents to pay the maintenance from the date of application i.e., 11.02.2021. (Prayer is amended as per the court order dated 06.01.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.879 of 2023). Between: 1. Shaik Dilshuk Begum, W/o. Respondent Baji Baig, D/o. Shaik Habeebulla, Muslim, aged 30 years. Now under care of her parents, R/o. Mubarak Nagar, Ponnur Town, Chittoor District. 2. Shaik Mahenoor Begu,, W/o. Respondent Baji Baig, Muslim, aged 3 years, being minor rep. by her natural guardian, next friend, mother i.e., 1®* Petitioner ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. Baji Baig, S/o. late Asmatulla Baig, Muslim, Aged about 35 Years, Ex- Service Man, R/o. Komarelu, Amudalapalli, Nizampatnm Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in^the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file copy of the affidavit and Material papers as part of the record in Revision Case No. 879 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. BASHA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MRS. M.L. NEELIMA The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010492032023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 879/2023 Between; Shaik Dilshuk Begum and Others AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BAS HA SHAIK ...PETITIONER(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M L NEELIMA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case was filed by the petitioners herein, against the Order dated 11.05.2023 passed in Maintenance Case No.4 of 2021 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur (for brevity ‘learned Magistrate’) whereby maintenance granted to the petitioners herein at Rs.5,000/- per month each and the respondent No.2 herein/husband was directed to pay on or before 5'^ of every month from the date of the aforesaid order. was Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 herein/state and the counsel for the respondent No.2/Husband. 2. The petitioner No.1 herein is the wife and petitioner No.2 herein is daughter, of the respondent No.2. Due to matrimonial disputes between the petitioner No.1 herein/wife and respondent No.2 herein/husband, the petitioner No.1 herein/wife, along with petitioner No.2 herein/daughter, was living separately. The petitioners filed M.C.No.4 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur for grant of maintenance. The 3. V i 3 learned Magistrate, after conducting full-fledged granted maintenance vide Order, dated 11.05.2023 and the operative portion of the said order, reads as under: inquiry. “In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner while amount of Rs.5,000/- to the 2”'^ petitioner on or before 5‘^ day of every month from the date of this order. an 4. Aggrieved by order of directing the respondent No.2 herein to pay the maintenance to the petitioners herein, from the date of the Order, the petitioners herein filed the present Criminal Revision Case praying the Court to modify the order of granting maintenance from the date of application i.e. 11.02.2021 instead of, from the date of the Order, dated 11.05.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioner No.1 herein/wife is not doing any job and totally depends upon the maintenance amount of the respondent No.2 herein/husband, whereas, the respondent No.2 herein/ husband is having source to pay the maintenance and leading high status. Hence, prays the Court to modify the i 4 Order of granting maintenance from the date of Order, dated 11.05.2023 to date of application i.e. 11.02.2021. 6. Learned counsel in view of the resolution of all the disputes between the couple in the Lok Adalat, the petitioners are not at all entitled for maintenance, much less from the date of the petition. Hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Heard. Perused the record. A perusal of the material on record goes to show 8. that vide Order, dated 11.05.2023 the learned Magistrate granted monthly maintenance to a tune of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners, directing the respondent No.2 herein/ husband to pay the said sum from the date of the Order. A perusal of material on record further goes to show that the petitioner No.1 herein/wife and respondent No.2 herein/husband settled the cases viz. Calendar Case No.268 of 2017, DVC No.2 of 2015 and MC No. 13 of 2016 that were registered as against the respondent No.2 herein/husband vide in Lok Adalat Award Nos.121 of 2017, 122 of 2017 and 123 of 2017, dated 31.07.2017 wherein, they agreed to live together. 5 Apparently, though both the petitioner No.1 herein/ 9. wife and respondent No.2 herein/husband amicably settled the CC No.268 of 2017, DVC No.2 of 2015 and MC No.13 of 2015 by virtue of Lok Adalat Award passed in Nos.121 of 2017, 122 of 2017 and 123 of 2017, dated 31.07.2017, it appears that the petitioners herein again filed MC No.4 of 2021 against the respondent No.2 herein/husband seeking for maintenance and the contents of the material on record goes to show that by the date of Order, dated 11.05.2023 in MC No.4 of 2021, the petitioner No.1 herein/wife and respondent No.2 herein/ husband were residing separately. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend 10. that the learned Magistrate though awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- each per month to the petitioners, towards maintenance, the respondent No.2 herein/husband was directed to pay such sum from the date of filing of the maintenance case. He placed strong reliance on the decision laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and another^ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.110 and 111 held as under: AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569. 6 “110. In Shall Kumar! Dev! v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shall Kumar! Dev! v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 see 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (eri) 839], this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 see (eiv) 321(2015) 4 see (erl) 200], this court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application. 111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the court concerned." 11. A perusal of the above ratio laid down by their Lordships, it is made clear that delay in adjudication would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial ' § 7 crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. In the Revision Case on hand, a perusal of material on record goes to show that, on one occasion, the petitioner No.1 herein/wife filed MC No. 13 of 2016 and due to the Award, dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench, it ended in compromise as both the petitioner No.1 herein/wife and respondent No.2 herein/husband agreed to live together. As subsequently, again matrimonial disputes cropped between the petitioner No.1 herein/wife and respondent No.2 herein/husband, the petitioner No.1 herein/wife was residing separately along with petitioner No.2 herein/daughter and filed MC No.4 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur. Indisputably, the learned Magistrate vide Order, 12. dated 11.05.2023 allowed the MC No.4 of 2021 granting maintenance to the petitioners herein to a tune of Rs.5,000/- each per month, directing the respondent No.2 herein/husband to pay on or before 5*^ day of every month from the date of the order. It is evident from the contentions of the petitioner No.1 herein/wife that she was ill-treated in the matrimonial home one year subsequent to her marriage with respondent No.2 8 herein/husband, on the demand of additional dowry. Further, as per the evidence of petitioner No.1 herein/wife as P.W1 in MC No.4 of 2021 before the learned Magistrate, she concedes that prior to the settlement of all the four cases before Lok Adalat, the respondent No.2 herein/husband credited an amount of Rs.40,000/-, dated 10.07.2017, an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- on 20.07.2017, an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 20.07.2017 and Rs. 15,000/- on 20.07.2017 into her account. Subsequent to passing of Lok Adalat Award, again disputes cropped up between the petitioner No.1 herein/wife and respondent No.2 herein/husband and the petitioner No.1 herein/wife filed fresh Maintenance Case vide MC No.4 of 2021 before the learned Magistrate, and it was ordered as aforesaid. Therefore, mere resumption of conjugal life by virtue of compromise effected between the parties is not a constraint to order for granting maintenance from the date of Order, dated 11.05.2023. There is merit and force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 herein/wife. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. the Order, dated 11.05.2023 passed in Maintenance Case No.4 of 2021 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- 9 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, is modified and the petitioners are granted maintenance from the date of filing of the Maintenance Case. The rest of the order in regard to quantum of granting maintenance by the learned Magistrate, is confirmed. 14. With the above said modification, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur. 2. One.CQ to Sri. Basha Shaik, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies To, at Chp vna i* ■ HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.879 of 2023 g* 0 ? AHK m % to Curreni deciion ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE