D VCNKATCSAN Vs. LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the Family Court, made in Interlocutory application No.335 of 1989. That application was under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. It is not disputed that the respondent had also filed an application under Sec.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and had obtained an order directing maintenance at the rate of Rs.250 per month. Taking note of that direction and the pay of the petitioner as indicated in Ex.B-1, the Family Court has fixed Rs.400 per month including the maintenance of Rs.250 ordered underSec.125 of Cr.P.C. to be paid from 9.9.1985, the dale of filing the application I.A.No.335 of 1989. By way of litigation expenses the court had directed a payment of Rs. 1,000. It is this order which is challenged by the husband in this revision.

(2.) I am unable to see any ground to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The maintenance of Rs.400 per month is inclusive of Rs.250 ordered under Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. The only contention of the petitioner is that the direction to pay maintenance should not be from the dale of the application. This contention cannot be accepted because the applicant in an application for interim maintenance is entitled to payment of interim maintenance from the date of her application. To hold otherwise, will lead to several complications. In a particular case, the court may take up the application immediately and in another case the court may take up the application after considerable delay. The question of payment will certainly arise from the date of the application.