Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i. Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. reported in (2014)1 SCC188;
ii. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636;

iii. Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivaram Adhav & Anr. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 530;

iv. Saraswati Maity @ Saraswati Jana Vs. Goutam Maity reported in 2017 3 CriLR(Cal) 616.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for petitioner of CRR No.143 of 2019 has refuted the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner of CRR 1410/2019 and contended that both the Learned Courts below have rightly held that the wife/petitioner is the legally married wife and the observations made by the Learned Courts below are based on materials placed on record. He has further contended that the Learned Judge has rightly granted the maintenance to the wife and the child from the date of filing of the application for maintenance and there is no cogent ground for interference with the impugned judgment and order.

In his written objection filed in connection with the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, opposite party denied his relationship with the petitioner. He has claimed that he is a married man and his marriage was solemnized with another lady.

In his written objection he has also claimed that the petitioner earns Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month as she is working as staff nurse.

After affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties, the Learned Magistrate on 17.08.2016 disposed of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the opposite party is the husband of the petitioner and opposite party is also the father of the child of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate observed that the opposite party/husband neglected to maintain the wife/petitioner and her child. Learned Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted maintenance to the wife/petitioner and her daughter at the @ Rs.8000/- and Rs.5000/- per month respectively from the date of the filing of the application for maintenance.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner of 1410 of 2019 has submitted that the order of maintenance should be from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. He has submitted that the Learned Courts below have committed an error in granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application for maintenance.

It is well settled that the court has discretion to grant maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of the application.

Both Learned courts below have elaborately considered the factual and legal aspects of the case. It is true that both the courts below have not mentioned any separate reason in this regard. Absence of separate reasons for granting maintenance from the date of the application does not mean that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order. If the order of maintenance is silent as to the date of taking effect of the order, in that case the order would be effective from the date of order. In the present case the Learned Magistrate has specifically stated that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. The Revisional Court has also affirmed that the petitioner wife is entitled to get maintenance from the date of the application.