Judgment 1. The Revision Petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.58/2009 on the files of the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. The 2nd respondent herein is the applicant in the above case. The said case was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The learned Magistrate as per order dated 23/4/2009 in C.M.P.No.8927/2009 directed the Revision Petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent herein. Thereafter, final order in M.C.No.58/2009 was passed on 4/9/2010 wherein the maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month. The said order was an ex parte order. 2. Challenging the above-said ex parte order, the Revision Petitioner herein filed Crl.A.No.27/2010 before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara. The Additional Sessions Court as per order in Crl.M.P.No.79/2011 dated 23/2/2011 stayed the operation of the order directing to pay Rs.2,500/-per month on condition that the Revision Petitioner shall deposit 50% of the said amount. It is submitted that the Revision Petitioner has deposited Rs.33,000/-as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the final order setting aside the ex parte order was passed on 19/8/2011 and remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate with a direction to the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/-per month till fresh consideration and disposal of M.C.No.58/2009. In the said final order, the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 4/9/2010 passed in. 3. After the remand, the 2nd respondent filed a petition,C.M.P.No.7022/2011 dated 24/11/2011 claiming an amount of Rs.81,000/-as the amount due at the rate of Rs.3,000/- from May 2009 to July 2011 and also at the rate of Rs.1000/- from 19/8/2011 to 19/11/2011. According to her, the Revision Petitioner defaulted payment of interim maintenance above mentioned and there is no justification for the same. The Revision petitioner opposed the said prayer stating, inter alia, that he is not liable to pay maintenance at the rate more than 1,000/-per month as directed by the Appellate Court. He disputed the claim of the 2nd respondent that she is entitled to get interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month till 19.08.2011 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. He is willing to pay maintenance at the rate fixed by the Appellate Court. He disputed the claim of the 2nd respondent that she is entitled to get interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month till 19.08.2011 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. He is willing to pay maintenance at the rate fixed by the Appellate Court. In short, the contention is that since the order was set aside in appeal, he is liable to pay the defaulted arrears at the rate fixed in the final order passed in appeal, i.e., Rs.1,000/- per month only. 4. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Magistrate found that the claim of the 2nd respondent to realize maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month till the order of the appellate court is not at all maintainable. The objection raised by the Revision Petitioner in this regard is sustainable. According to the learned Magistrate, the 2nd respondent can claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from May 2009 till this date. There are 33 months upto January 2012 for which the 2nd respondent is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.1.000/-per month and it will come only Rs.33,000/-. 5. The 2nd respondent challenged the above order in Crl.A.No.39/2012 before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and clarified as follows. "The maintenance ordered from 19th August 2011 is only Rs.1000/- till the disposal of M.C after the remand. Thus the 2nd respondent can claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- only from the date of disposal of the appeal on 19/8/2011 till the disposal of the case after the remand. The maintenance is to be paid from the filing of the appeal till 18/8/2011 is 2500/- per month. 50% of the maintenance before filing of the appeal amounting to Rs.33,000/- already deposited. Thus no further amount can be claimed on this count, if any amount is due other than Rs.33,000/-now in deposit." I heard Shri. R. Reji, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Shri. K. Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6. In support of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that since the order was set aside in appeal on 19/8/2011, the Revision Petitioner is liable to pay at the rate of Rs.1,000/-from the very beginning of the lis, ie; from 23.04.2009. 6. In support of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that since the order was set aside in appeal on 19/8/2011, the Revision Petitioner is liable to pay at the rate of Rs.1,000/-from the very beginning of the lis, ie; from 23.04.2009. The first order in C.M.P.No.8927/2009 was passed on 23/4/2009. In short, according to the Revision Petitioner he is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- only from 23/4/2009 to 19/8/2011 and thereafter till the filing of the application on which the impugned order was passed. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be justified in full. According to the learned counsel, though the respondent has not challenged the said Judgment, there are some mistakes and irregularities in the calculation of the amount fixed. The clarification given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also vague and confusing. 8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsel at the Bar. The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that since the order passed by the Magistrate Court was set aside in appeal on 19/8/2011 and directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, till fresh disposal of M.C. He is liable to pay arrears at the rate of Rs.1,000/-only from 23/4/2009, the date of passing of interim order directing him to pay Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the Revision Petitioner, rate fixed by the Apellate Court is applicable to a period anterior to that order also. In short, he is claiming benefit of the judgment passed in appeal retrospectively. I am not inclined to accept the said argument of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 9. It is correct to say that the interim order passed by the Magistrate Court for the maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be merged in the final order and that final order passed by the Magistrate Court would be merged in the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. But the question is, when does the merger come into effect? But the question is, when does the merger come into effect? Whether the effect of merger can be applied retrospectively for a period anterior to the judgment passed in appeal, so as to justify the non-compliance or dis-obediance of the interim order or to annul the realisation of arrear amount due under interim order pending enforcement. I am of the opinion that the theory of merger cannot be applied retrospectively for a period anterior to the Appellate Court judgment, so as to annul the realisation of arrear amount due under interim order and pending enforcement, in a proceeding under Section 128 of the Cr. P.C., unless it is otherwise provided in the Appellate Court judgment. 10. The present application, on which the impugned order was passed, was one for realisation of arrears of maintenance defaulted by the Revision Petitioner before the passing of final order in appeal. Put it differently, that is the amount due to the 2nd respondent for a period in which the Revision Petitioner disobeyed the earlier interim order passed by the Magistrate Court. Now he is claiming benefit of the Appellate Court judgment for the defaulted period also, which can never be allowed. The final judgment passed in appeal has prospective operation only. The learned Magistrate erroneously found that rate fixed by the Appellate Court is applicable to a period anterior to that judgment also. The order under challenge passed by the Magistrate Court will merge in the judgment of the Appellate Court on the date of judgment only. It cannot be applied to a period anterior to that judgment unless it is otherwise specifically provided in that judgment. Here, the judgment under challenge does not provide otherwise. So, he should have paid maintenance at the rate specified in interim order for the period in which that interim order was in force. He cannot claim benefit of the judgment passed in appeal retrospectively for the arrear of the defaulted period, in which interim order was in force. If the argument advanced by the Revision Petitioner is accepted, it will give undue advantages to the Revision Petitioner, who was found contumacious all along the proceedings, despite the interim order and final order. His contumaciousness cannot be justified under the cover of Appellate Court judgment. 11. In view of the proposition laid down above, I shall deal with the question in controversy involved in this Revision. His contumaciousness cannot be justified under the cover of Appellate Court judgment. 11. In view of the proposition laid down above, I shall deal with the question in controversy involved in this Revision. C.M.P.No.8927/2009 in M.C.No.58/2009 was an application for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. The learned Magistrate allowed C.M.P.No.8927/2009 as such on 23.04.2009 and directed the Revision petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month. That order was not challenged in appeal. Therefore, that order was in force till the disposal of the M.C. on 4/9/2010. The M.C. No.58/2009 was disposed of on 04.09.2010 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month only. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Revision Petitioner should have paid maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/-per month from 23/4/2009 to 4/9/2010, but no amount had been paid during these period. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from 23/4/2009 to 4/9/2010. 12. The order passed in M.C. was challenged in appeal No.27/2011 before the Additional Sessions Court-I and filed Crl.M.P.No.79/2011 to stay the operation of the order passed in M.C.No.58/2009. The said Crl. M.P. was allowed and the operation of the order passed in M.C.No.58/2009 was stayed on condition that the Revision petitioner shall deposit 50% of the arrears amount. That order was passed on 23/2/2011. Therefore, I find that the Revision Petitioner is liable to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2500/-per month from 4/9/2010 to 23/2/2011, that is, from the date of final disposal of the M.C. to the date of stay order passed in appeal. 13. Thereafter the appeal was allowed on 19/8/2011 only. In the appeal, the impugned order passed in M.C.No.58/2009 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate Court for fresh consideration on merits and directed the Revision Petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1000/-till the final disposal of the M.C. after fresh consideration. Therefore, I find that the 2nd Respondent is not entitled to get maintenance from 23/2/2011 to 19/8/2011, that is, from the date of the stay order passed in appeal till the date of final order passed in appeal. 14. In Appeal, the final judgment directing the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/-per month till fresh disposal of M.C was passed on 19/8/2011. 14. In Appeal, the final judgment directing the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/-per month till fresh disposal of M.C was passed on 19/8/2011. So from 19/8/2011, the date of that judgment till 24/11/2011, the date of filing the application on which the impugned order under challenge is passed, the Revision petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1000/-only. Unfortunately, the courts below have concurrently failed to calculate the actual amount due in its correct perspective. The actual amount due to the 2nd Respondent can be 15. Going by the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it could be seen that both courts went wrong in fixing the rate of maintenance in its correct perspective, for the period from date of interim order passed by the Magistrate Court till the disposal of the appeal on 19/8/2011. Put it differently, the courts below went wrong in calculating the arrears from 23/4/2009, i.e. the date of interim order in the M.C. till 19/8/2011, the date of disposal of the Appeal. 16. Consequently, the judgment under challenge passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to calculate the actual amount due to the 2nd respondent, as per the period and corresponding rates shown in the table given above and pass fresh order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. All execution proceedings for arrear will stand postponed till the passing of the fresh order in C.M.P.No.7022/2011 in accordance with the direction in this order arrived at, as per the period and corresponding rates shown below :- The Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.