JUDGMENT : 1. These are two Criminal Revisions against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, by which Criminal Misc. Case No.760 of 2004, Smt. Poonam Devi vs. Narendra Kumar, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Poonam Devi (wife/revisionist) has been allowed. 2. Smt. Poonam Devi has filed the Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 inter alia praying for enhancement of the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 2.8.2004 and has also prayed for awarding the cost of Rs.15,000/- lump sum, whereas Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 has been filed by Shri Narendra Kumar, who is the husband of Smt. Poonam Devi, praying for setting aside the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 760 of 2004. 3. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of the common factual matrix and law as well as the common judgment, therefore, these two criminal revisions are being decided by the common judgment and order. 4. Heard Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel, who has put in appearance for the husband Narendra Kumar in Criminal Revision No.176 of 2012 and Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, who has appeared for Smt. Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012. 5. Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist Smt. Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 has submitted that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/claimant Smt. Poonam Devi remained pending since 2.8.2004 and thus eight years were taken for deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is summary proceeding and therefore, she is entitled for the maintenance allowance to be given from the date of the filing of the application under Section 125 i.e. 2.8.2004. 6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/claimant/Poonam Devi has further submitted that at least 1/3rd of the amount of the income of the husband ought to have been awarded in her favour. He submits that as less than 1/3rd amount has been awarded by means of the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, therefore, the amount awarded in favour of the claimant/revisionist is liable to be enhanced. 7. He submits that as less than 1/3rd amount has been awarded by means of the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, therefore, the amount awarded in favour of the claimant/revisionist is liable to be enhanced. 7. Refuting the aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the revisionist/claimant/Poonam Devi, Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar has submitted that there was no reason for the trial court to award the maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application. The order impugned is ambiguous as learned trial court has wrongly interpreted the statement of the opposite party 2 i.e. Smt. Poonam Devi recorded before this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 : Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Ram Narain. He submits that the trial court has erroneously drawn adverse conclusion against the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar for filing a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Unnao ignoring the fact that respondent no.2/wife/Poonam Devi is permanent resident of Unnao. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that Smt. Poonam Devi (revisionist/wife) was married with the Narendra Kumar (revisionist/husband) on 28.4.2002. The dispute arose between the parties after six months of their marriage. The revisionist/Poonam Devi was living separately away from her husband (revisionist/Narendra Kumar) for justified reasons as her father had died and her in-laws were forcing her to sell her ancestral land so that Maruti Car be purchased. From the evidence led before the trial court it has come on record that the Revisionist/Poonam Devi was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for demand of dowry. 9. It transpires from the impugned order that learned trial Court, while deciding the case, has framed three issues i.e. (i) whether the husband has no source of income; (ii) whether the husband is neglecting his wife and is not maintaining his wife; and (iii) whether the wife is able to maintain herself. 9. It transpires from the impugned order that learned trial Court, while deciding the case, has framed three issues i.e. (i) whether the husband has no source of income; (ii) whether the husband is neglecting his wife and is not maintaining his wife; and (iii) whether the wife is able to maintain herself. The finding given by the learned trial court is extracted below:- ^^izLrqr ekeys es lk{; ls Li"V gS fd ;kfnuh vius ifr ls vyx jg jgh gSA okfnuh ds vuqlkj mlds firk dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS vkSj mlds ifr lkl llqj rFkk ifjokj ds vU; lnL;] firk dh tehu vius uke djkus ds fy, okfnuh ij ncko Mkyus yxs rFkk okfnuh dks izrkfM+r djus yxs vkSj mls ifr o llqjky okys okfnuh ls vius firk dh tehu cspdj ek:fr dkj [kjhnus ds fy, dgrs Fks rFkk ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls izrkfM+Rk djrs FksA ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd okfnuh dh llqjky okyks mldk rhu ekg dk xHkZ fxjok fn;k vkSj okfnuh ds pkpk jke ujk;u tc mlls fyus vk;s] rks okfnuh ds llqjky okyks us okfnuh dks tcjnLrh muds lkFk Hkst fn;k vkSj dgk fd tc rd vius firk dh tehu cspdj ek:fr dkj [kjhn ugha ysrh gks] llqjky okil er vkukA okfnuh ds pkpk }kjk okrkZyki dj ekeys dks lqy>kus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] fdUrq okfnuh ds ifr okfnuh dks ys tkus ds fy, rS;kj ugh gq,A izfroknh&i{k }kjk okfnuh }kjk vfHkdfFkr rF;ksa ls badkj fd;k x;k gS] vkSj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd okfnuh izfroknh ds ;gka dksbZ dke ugh djrh Fkh vkSj og vius pkpk ds lkFk Loa; pyh xbZ FkhA izfroknh mls dbZ ckj ysus x;k] fdUrq og okil ugha vkbZ vkSj vra izfroknh us ekŒmPp U;k;ky; esa ,d gSfo;l dkjil nkf[ky fd;k] ftles okfnuh us mifLFkr gksdj crk;k fd og viuh ethZ ls pkpk ds lkFk jg jgh gS vkSj izfroknh ds lkFk jgus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA mlds ckn izfroknh us ikfjokfjd U;k;ky;] dkuiqj es okn la[;k&88@2004 & varxr /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e izLrqr fd;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh us mUuko U;k;ky; ls fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh izkIr dj yh gS vkSj nwljh 'kknh Hkh dj yh gS] ftlls mls ,d 12 eghus dh iq=h Hkh gS okfnuh us viuh izfrijh{kk es crk;k gS fd og fonk gksdj tc izfroknh ds ?kj vkbZ rks igyh ckj lkyHkj jghA bl chp mlds ek;ds okys vkrs&tkrs Fks vkSj og Hkh vkrh&tkrh FkhA okfnuh us viuh izfrijh{kk es ;g Hkh crk;k fd og llqjky ls fcnk gksdj ugh vkbZ] cfYd mldks ekjehV dj fudky fn;k x;k Fkk lk{kh us ;g Hkh crk;k fd og fnukad 10-06-2003 dks vius ek;ds xbZ Fkh] rks mlds firk fcnk djkus vk;s Fks] rks eksVjlkbfdy dh pkHkh Qsddj dgk fd fn;k ngst es dkj nksxs] rHkh fonk djk;sxsaA lk{kh us crk;k fd mlus mPp U;k;ky; es c;ku fn;k Fkk fd mldh fgEer ugh gS fd og vius ifr ds lkFk tkuk pkgs] blfy, vius pkpk ds lkFk tkuk pkgrh gS nksuks i{kks dh lk{; ls Li"V gS fd okfnuh rFkk izfroknh dh 'kknh ds 6 ekg ckn fookn mRiUu gqvkA okfnuh ds vuqlkj izfroknh rFkk mlds ifjokj ds yksx ngst ds fy, mldks izrkfM+r djrs Fks vkSj mlds firk dh e`R;q ds ckn dgrs Fks fd og tehu cspdj ek:fr dkj [kjhn dj ns] tcfd izfroknh dk dFku gS fd okfnuh ?kj es dksbZ dke ugh djrh Fkh vkSj NksVh&NksVh ckrks es fookn mRiUu djrh FkhA lk{; ls Li"V gS fd ikfnuh ds ifjokj ds yksx 'kknh es tks eksVjlkbfdy izfroknh dks fn;s Fks] ;g okfnuh us okil ys fy;k gS] D;ksfd izfroknh dkj dh ekax djrk FkkA izfroknh }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr cgl es mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd okfnuh fnukad 08-06-2003 dks vius pkpk ds lkFk pyh xbZ Fkh vkSj tc izfroknh mls fonk djkus x;k rks og ek;ds es ugha feyh] og viuh cgu ds ;gka xbZ gqbZ FkhA mlds ckn iqu% izfroknh] okfnuh ds ?kj x;k] rks okfnuh ds ifjokj okyks us izfroknh ds lkFk vHknzrk dh RkFkk eksVjlkbfdy ;wŒihŒ35lh 9387 Nhu yhA fnukad 24-08-2007 dks izfroknh us iz/kku U;k;k/kh'k] ikfjokfjd U;k;ky;] dkuiqj es /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk okn lafLFkr fd;kA izzfroknh us fnukad ¼02-04-2008 dks ,d gSfo;l dkjil fjV la[;k 216@2004 izLrqr fd;k] ftles okfnuh us vfHkdFku fd;k fd og izfroknh ds lkFk ugh jguk pkgrh gS] cfYd vius pkpk ds lkFk tkuk pkgrh gSA izfroknh us /kkjk&9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk okn [kkfjt djkdj mUuko es /kkjk&13 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e es okn la[;k 226@2005 fnukad 18-05-2005 dks lafLFkr fd;k] ftles oknh dks fMØh izkIr gks xbZA fnukad 27-11-2009 dks izfroknh us f'kojkuh uke vkSjr ls fookg dj fy;k] ftlls ,d iq=h gqbZ] ftldk uke oS".koh gS vkSj mldh mez 12 ekg gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd izfroknh okfnuh dks ngst ds fy, izrkfM+Rk djrk Fkk rFkk okfnuh ij ncko cukrk Fkk fd og vius firk dh tehu cspdj ek:fr dkj [kjhns vkSj mlds fy, mls ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls izrkfM+r djrk FkkA izfroknh us gSfo;l dkjil dh fjV rFkk /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk okn Hkh lafLFkr fd;k Fkk vkSj ckn es mUuko es /kkjk&13 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dh ;kfpdk izLrqr dj fookg&fo?kVu dh fMØh Hkh izkIr dj yh vkSj iqu% f'kojkuh uked vkSj ls 'kknh dj yh gS] ftlls ml ,d iq=h Hkh gS] ftldh mez yxHkx 12 ekg gSA bl izdkj leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls Li"V gS fd izfroknh] okfnuh dks tkucw>dj misf{kr djrs gq, mldk Hkj.k&iks"k.k ugha dj jgk gSA izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls nso ujk;u gkynkj cuke Jhefr vuqJh gkynj , vkbZ vkj 203 lqizhe dksVZ 3174 dk lUnHkZ izLrqqr fd;k x;k gS] ftles ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn ngst ekax djus dh lk{; rFkk okfnuh dks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djus dh lk{; i=koyh ij u gks vkSj okfnuh Lo;a vyx jg jgh gks] rks ;g Hkj.k&iks"k.k HkRrk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gS blh izdkj lat; lq/kkdj Hkkslys cuke dfruk fdfeuy fjohtu vIyhds'ku uaŒ226@2002 tks fnukad 08-04-2008 dks ekŒ mPp U;k;ky; ckWEcs dh vkSjxakckn ihB }kjk fu.khZr fd;k x;k gS] dk Hkh lUnHkZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftles ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ngst dh ekax dh iqf”V u gks vkSj okfnuh Lo;eso vyx jg jgh gks] rks ;g Hkj.k&iks"k.k HkŸkk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA izLrqr ekeys es] tSlk fd Åij fo’ysf"kr fd;k x;k gS] izfroknh }kjk okfnuh dks ngst ds fy, izrkfM+r fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk ml ij ncko Mkyk tkrk Fkk fd og vius firk dh tehu dks cspdj izfroknh ds fy, ek:fr dkj [kjhn dj ns vkSj blh lEca/k es izfroknh us mls ekjihV dj Hkxk fn;k FkkA izfroknh us gSfo;l dkjil fjV izLrqr dh rFkk dkuiqj U;k;ky; es /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk okn izLrqr fd;k] ftls izfroknh us [kkfjt djk fy;k vkSj /kkjk 13 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk okn mUuko es izLrqr fd;k] tcfd izfroknh us ,d okn vrZxr /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dkuiqj es izLRkqr fd;k Fkk vkSj og dkuiqj es jgRkk Fkk] rks mUuko U;k;ky; es /kkjk 13 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk okn izLrqr djus dk D;k vkSfpR; FkkA tuin mUuko es izfroknh }kjk okn izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlls Li"V gS fd izfroknh ;su&dsu^izdkjs.k okfnuh ls NqVdkjk ikuk pkgrk Fkk vkSj mUuko U;k;ky; ls fookg fo?kVu dh fMd izkIr dj nwljk fookg Hkh dj fy;k ftlls mls ,d iq=h Hkh gS] fdUrq izfroknh us bl rF; dk viuh eq[; ijh{kk es vFkok fdlh vU; lk{; ds ek/;e ls i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA mDr rF; izfroknh dk ;g vkpj.k Hkh bl ckr dk |ksrd gS fd okfnuh }kjk vkjksfir rF; lgh gS vkSj ngst dh ekax vFkok ekufld o 'kkjhfjd izrkfM+r fd;s tkus dh RkF; dks fl} ugha dj ldhA tgka rd] izfroknh dh vk; dk lEca/k gS] ;g fufoZokfnr gS fd izfroknh ,pŒ,Œ,yŒ] dkuiqj es VsfDfuf'k;u ds in ij dk;Zjr gS vkSj mls :Œ15]000@& izfrekg izkIr gksrs gSA tgka rd bl rF; dk iz'u gS fd mlds ifjokj es mlds HkkbZ] firk rFkk vU; lnL; gS] ftudk Hkj.k&iks"k.k Hkh izfroknh ij vkfJr gS] Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksfd izfroknh us viuh izfrijh{kk es ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd og vius ifjokj ls vyx jgrk gSA bl izdkj izfroknh ds ikl i;kZIr lk/ku gS] mlds ckotwn Hkh og viuh iRuh dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k ugha dj jgk gSA tgka rd] okfnuh dh vk; ds lzksr dk iz'Uk gS] izfroknh us viuh vkifŸk es vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd okfnuh ds ckck ds ikl yxHkx 20 ch?kk d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe gS rFkk mlds pkpk ds ikl Hkh 25 ch?kk tehu gSA firk dh e`R;q ds ckn okfnuh viuh d`f”k ;ksX; Hkwfe dh ns[kHkky djrh gS vkSj blls okfnuh dh ekfld vk; :Œ5000@& gSA izfroknh }kjk fyf[kr cgl es Hkh bl ckr dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd okfnuh dh xzke igkM+iqj es lk ch?kk d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe gS] ftles okfnuh dk 1@3 fgLlk gS rFkk igkM+iqj xko es lkr dejs dk iDdk edku gS] ftldh dher uks yk[k :i;s gS] ftles okfnuh dk 1@3 fgLlk gSA d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe ls okfnuh :Œ60]000@& okf"kd dh vk; izkIr djrh gS rFkk ckx ls :15]000@& vk; izkIr djrh gS rFkk nks edku gS] ftlls :Œ2000@& fdjk;k izkIr djrh gSA izfroknh }kjk dqN [krkSuh ds m)j.k izLrqr fd;s x;s gS] ftles d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe es okfnuh dk uke [kljk laŒ1737 fLFkr xzke Hknslqok ijxuk fuxksgk rglhy eksguyky xat ij okfjl ds :i es vU; lg[kkrsnkjh ds lkFk vafdr fn[kk;k x;k gSA bl xkVs dk {ks=Qy 6640 gsDVs;j gSA izfroknh }kjk okfnuh dh d`f"k ;kssX; Hkwfe dk fooj.k rks izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq viuh d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe dk dksbZ fooj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;fn d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe es okfnuh dk dksbZ fgLlk gS Hkh rks ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mlds ikl Hkj.k&iks"k.k ds fy, i;kZIr lk/ku gSA tgka rd izfroknh i{k }kjk viuh fyf[kr cgl es vk; dk fooj.k fn;k x;k gS] mldh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] vr% ;g Lohdkj djuk lehphu ugha gS fd okfnuh ds ikl vius Hkj.k iks”k.k ds fy, i;kZIr lk/ku gSA mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ls Li"V gS fd okfnuh tks izfroknh dh fookfgrk iRuh gS] ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k ls izfroknh ls vyx jg jgh gS vkSj izfroknh mldh mis{kk djds Hkj.k&iks"k.k ugha dj jgk gSA ;kfnuh dh viuh Loa; dh dksbZ vk; ugha gS] vr,o ;g izfroknh ls Hkj.k&iks"k.k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA tagk rd] Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k dk iz'u gS] ;g fufoZokfnr gS fd izfroknh ,pŒ,Œ,yŒ] dkuiqj es VsfDuf'k;u ds in ij dk;Zjr gS] tgka mls :Œ15]000@& ekfld izkIr gksrs gS] vr,o] okfnuh izfroknh ls :40]000@& izfrekg Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA vkns'k izkfFkZuh@okfnuh dk izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk&125 nŒizŒlaŒ Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh@izfroknh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og izkfFkZuh@okfnuh dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh frfFk ls fu.kZ; dh frfFk rd :1]500@&¼,d gtkj ikWp lkS :i;s ek=½ izfrekg rFkk fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls :Œ4000@&¼pkj gtkj :i;s ek=½ izfrekg Hkj.k&iks"k.k HkŸkk dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku djsxkA^^ 10. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, it is evident that learned trial Court has considered the statement of the wife Poonam Devi given before this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 on 01.10.2004, where she has stated that she, on her own accord, is residing with her uncle and has refused to go with her husband (Narendra Kumar). Thereafter, a Suit for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights was filed by the husband/Narendra Kumar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Suit No.88 of 2004 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur. Thereafter, the husband Narendra Kumar had filed a suit for divorce in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao. Has also obtained the decree and re-married and out of the wedlock he had 12 months old daughter. The claimant/ Poonam Devi has clarified the statement given by her before the High Court that she doesn't have the guts/courage to go with her husband so she wants to go with her uncle. After scrutinizing the evidence learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion that the claimant/Poonam Devi has been deliberately neglected and was denied the maintenance. Learned trail court has further considered that Habeas Corpus Writ Petition (supra) was filed at High Court, Lucknow by the husband Narendra Kumar. Thereafter in Family Court, Kanpur an application under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act was filed. Subsequent thereto a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed at Unnao thereafter had arrived at a conclusion that the husband somehow wanted to get rid of the claimant and after getting the divorce decree from Unnao he has remarried and had a daughter. Subsequent thereto a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed at Unnao thereafter had arrived at a conclusion that the husband somehow wanted to get rid of the claimant and after getting the divorce decree from Unnao he has remarried and had a daughter. However, the husband in his examination-in-chief or by way of any other evidence has not brought these facts on record rather the same has been revealed in his cross examination and therefore has rightly inferred that the husband/ Narendra Kumar has tried to conceal these facts and considering this conduct of the husband/Narendra Kumar the trial court has found the allegations made by the claimant/wife Poonam Devi correct and therefore has rightly arrived at a conclusion that it will not be proper to say that claimant herself is residing away from her husband Narendra Kumar and could not prove the demand of dowry and the mental and physical cruelty which she was subjected and thus has decided the issue no.2 in favour of the claimant. 11. So far as income of the respondent/husband/ Narendra Kumar is concerned issue no.1 was framed. It is not in dispute that Narendra Kumar is employee in HAL Kanpur on the post of Technician and he is getting Rs.15000/- per moth. It has been rightly held that he has enough source of income and still he is not maintaining his wife. The wife though has some ancestral agricultural land but on that basis it has been rightly held that she cannot maintain herself. The husband has not given any details of his agricultural income and he has not adduced any evidence regarding the income of the wife except the objections filed by him and thus trial court has rightly concluded that the claimant/Poonam Devi is the legally wedded wife of the respondents and is residing away from him for justified reasons and the respondents is not maintaining her and she has no source of income and therefore she is entitled to receive maintenance from the husband. 12. 12. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, on the basis of undisputed facts that the respondents is a Technician in HAL Kanpur where he is getting Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore learned trial court has held that the claimant/Poonam Devi is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance amount from the husband/Narendra Kumar, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The same is in conformity with the law however, considering the fact that the maintenance application remained pending since 2004, therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to a cost of Rs.15000/- as the expenses which has been incurred by her during these eight years while contesting this case before the trial court. Learned trial court has awarded Rs.15,00/- per month maintenance from the date of filing of the application and Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of the order to be paid to the claimant by the respondents. 13. So far as awarding the maintenance amount from the date of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it would be apt to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another : 2020 SCC Online SC 903, has held in paragraph-10 that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under :- "IV Date from which Maintenance to be awarded There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date from which an Order of maintenance may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not provide the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded. Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision which provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of application. [K. Sivaram vs. K. Mangalamba and others: 1989 (1) APLJ (HC) 604]. In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent. (a) From date of application The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependant children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years. The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v Rabindra Nath Sahu, 1996(I) OLR 361 held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order. In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena, 2001 Cri L.J. 879, the Orissa High Court was considering an application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was within the discretion of the Court, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v Urmila Jena, (2010) 93 AIC 726 (Ori) wherein it was reiterated that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jain v Dharam Raj Jain, 1993 (2) MPJR 63 held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jain v Dharam Raj Jain, 1993 (2) MPJR 63 held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view that the "normal rule" was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2)Cr.P.C., which the Legislature did not intend. Reasons must be recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of order. The law governing payment of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v Additional District Judge, Gonda & Ors. The Court held that the date of application should always be regarded as the starting point for payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for maintenance u/S. 18 of HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment. The High Court held that the normal inference should be that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the application, which may arise due to paucity of time of the Court, or on account of the conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there was a delay of seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to maintenance from the date of application / suit. The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v. Rukmani, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 851/2019, decided by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 29.11.2019, held that where the wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses towards maintaining herself and the minor child / children, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. It is neither a matter of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the husband. (b) From the date of order The second view that maintenance ought to be awarded from the date of order is based on the premise that the general rule is to award maintenance from the date of order, and grant of maintenance from the date of application must be the exception. The foundation of this view is based on the interpretation of Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which provides : "(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be." The words "or, if so ordered" in Section 125 has been interpreted to mean that where the court is awarding maintenance from the date of application, special reasons ought to be recorded. In Bina Devi v State of U.P., (2010) 69 ACC 19, the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v Sangeeta Verma & Ors. C.R.R. No. 3542/2019 decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated 08.1.2020, directed that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of the order. (c) From the date of service of summons The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of service of summons upon the respondent. The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v K.M.K. Nair, AIR 1983 Ker 139 , was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v K.M.K. Nair, AIR 1983 Ker 139 , was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High Court held that maintenance must be awarded to the wife from the date on which summons were served in the main divorce petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Samir Banerjee v Sujata Banerjee, 70 CWN 633, and held that Section 24 of the HMA does not contain any provision that maintenance must be awarded from a specific date. The Court may, in exercise of its discretion, award maintenance from the date of service of summons. The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das v Pradyumna Kumar Das, 1986 (II) OLR 44 , was considering an application for interim maintenance filed u/S. 24 HMA by the wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the husband. The Court held that the ordinary rule is to award maintenance from the date of service of summons. It was held that in cases where the applicant in the maintenance petition is also the petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance becomes payable from the date when summons is served upon the respondent in the main proceeding. In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar Das, AIR 2009 Ori 133 , the Orissa High Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the date when the husband entered appearance. The Court was considering an application for interim maintenance u/S. 24 HMA in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the wife and minor child from the date of the order. In an appeal filed by the wife and minor child seeking maintenance from the date of application, the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to assign any reasons in support of its order, and directed : "9. Learned Judge. Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. Learned Judge. Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When admittedly the parties are living separately and prima facie it appears that the Petitioners have no independent source of income, therefore, in our view order should have been passed for payment of interim maintenance from the date of appearance of the Opposite Party-husband?" Discussion and Directions The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in S. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 , 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, (2015) 6 SCC 353 , 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. 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 dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. 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 dependant spouse hampers 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 concerned Court. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 , the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held : "13.3. purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society." It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant." 14. From the aforesaid dictum, it transpires that controversy in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. From the aforesaid dictum, it transpires that controversy in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. It was also held by the Apex Court that the right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. The judgement being retrospective shall apply in this case also. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the learned trial court in favour of the claimant/wife has to be paid by the husband/Narendra Kumar to the claimant/wife from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. w.e.f. 2.8.2004. 15. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 filed by Smt. Poonam Devi is allowed in part. The judgment and order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the husband-Narendra Kumar is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to his wife-Smt. Poonam Devi from the date of application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. w.e.f. 2.8.2004. It is clarified that any amount paid by the husband-Narendra Kumar during pendency of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court shall be adjusted from the amount payable to Smt. Poonam Devi. 16. So far as the enhancement of the maintenance as awarded by the trial Court is concerned, no fresh circumstances have been brought before this Court so as to enhance the maintenance, however, liberty is granted to the claimant/wife to move an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for altercation in allowance of maintenance upon proof of change in circumstances such as enhancement of the salary of her husband Narendra Kumar etc. If such application is made, the same shall be decided, expeditiously, by the trial court concerned. 17. If such application is made, the same shall be decided, expeditiously, by the trial court concerned. 17. So far as plea raised in Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 by the husband Narendra Kumar that statement made by the claimant before this Court in the Habeas Corpus writ petition has not been considered by the learned trial court is concerned, the same is not correct as the learned trial court has not only considered the statement of the claimant in the Habeas Corpus writ petition made before this Court but has also considered the statement of the claimant/witness/wife, who has stated that the statement was given as she could not dare to go with her husband and therefore she wanted to go with her uncle. 18. In Habeas corpus writ petition only this much is to be seen whether the detenue has been illegally detained or not. The only interpretation to the statement given by the wife/Poonam Devi before this Court in Habeas Corpus petition can be made that she has not been illegally detained. The learned trial court while considering this statement has simultaneously also considered the conduct of the husband by which he has filed case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kanpur Family Court and another case under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband at Unnao court and has obtained the decree of divorce and has remarried after the decree of divorce and has a girl of 12 months old. All these facts show that learned trial court has rightly held that husband Narendra Kumar wanted to get rid of the claimant/wife and all these facts have not been stated by him in his examination-in-chief or by means of any other evidence rather the same have come before this Court in his cross examination and therefore has rightly held that the husband has tried to conceal these facts from this court and then considering the conduct of the husband, the trial court has rightly held that the claimant is residing away from the husband for justified reasons and she has been neglected by not paying maintenance and husband had to maintain to her and she is a destitute and has no source of income and therefore she is entitled to get the maintenance from the husband. 19. 19. In view of the forgoing discussion, the Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 filed by the husband/Narendra Kumar is dismissed.