Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 644 (MP)

Mahila Asha v. Gopalbabu Namdeo

1996-07-23

TEJ SHANKAR

body1996
JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J. 1. Two points have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition arising out of proceedings Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 2. It appears that a petition was moved by Mahila Asha Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself and her son. The petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate and a sum of Rs. 500/- was awarded as maintenance for the wife and another sum of Rs. 500/- to the son from the date of the application. A Revision petition was preferred by the present respondent Gopalbabu. The revising Court partly allowed the revision petition by its order dated 27.7.1994 and reduced the amount of maintenance to the son to Rs. 400/- and directed that the amount be paid from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate instead of date of the application. The wife, original petitioner, Manila Asha has preferred this petition. 3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the learned Revising Court has wrongly revised the amount and secondly has directed that the amount be paid from the date of the order instead date of the application and as such the impugned order calls for interference by this Court. He placed reliance upon 1992 M.P.W.N., Vol. Note 21, Bafatikhan v. Mahila Hasina Bano, where this Court held that the amount of maintenance cannot be awarded from the date of desertion. It may be awarded from the date of the application. The other case relied upon is 1994 M.P.W.N. Vol. II Note 22=11 (1994) DMC 614, Rakesh kumar Saxena v. Smt. Sadhana Saxena, where the amount of maintenance was suitably enhanced and was made payable from the date of the petition. In the same volume another decision has been reported as 1994 MPWN Vol. II Note 47, Shantibai v. Vishwanath, where the Court awarded the amount of maintenance from the date of the application. The Revising Court modified the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the application. The Court pointed out that the mere fact that no reason was given in the order for awarding the maintenance from the date of the application it would not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order. The Court pointed out that the mere fact that no reason was given in the order for awarding the maintenance from the date of the application it would not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order. Besid(r) this nothing was laid down. Lastly, reliance was placed upon 1995 MPWN Vol.I Note 233, Smt. Radha Sujani v. Rameshkumar Sujani. This case does not appear to be on the point. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that sufficient reasons have been given by the learned Court below and it is not correct to say that reasons have not been given. He placed reliance upon 1983 MPWN 148, Lachhmani v. Ramu, where the view was taken that the normal rule is to award maintenance from the date of the order, and if maintenance amount is awarded from the date of the application reasons have to be recorded. The other case relied upon is 1991 MPWN Vol.I Note 48=I (1991) DMC 248, Krishna Kumar v. Smt. Kiran. In this case also this Court held that maintenance should be ordinarily awarded from the date of the order. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended, that there is no room for interference in revision. 5. I have considered the contentions, it must be mentioned at the very outset that the contention that reasons have not been given by the learned Revising Court for awarding lesser amount to the son and for directing that the amount be awarded from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be correct. A perusal of the order of the learned Revising Court shows that in para 9 of its judgment the learned Court has given reasons for reducing the amount of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- whereas in paras 6 and 7 it dealt with the question of the date from which the maintenance be awarded. It cannot, therefore, be said that no reasons have been given. I, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order. As said above, the authorities of this Court say that the normal rule is that maintenance be awarded from the date of the order. The Court has also given reasons for doing so. Therefore, no interference is called for. The revision petition is dismissed.