MAHADEO SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed against the judgment dt. 3.10.1988 passed by Sri U.C. Tiwari, Special/Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, partly allowing the revision filed by the opposite party No. 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi and directing that maintenance(r) Rs. 300/-be paid by the present applicant to the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Nirmala Devi under Section 125, Cr.P.C. from the date of application under that Section.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Nirmala Devi moved an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. sometime in the year 1985 for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month. She asserted that the opposite party, to whom she was married and who has neglected her was earning Rs. 1.200/" per month, being an employee in the State Bank of India. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 6.2.1988 finally disposed of the matter directing the opposite party Sri Mahadeo Singh to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the order dated 6.2.1988 to Smt. Nirmala Devi. Both the parties filed revision against this order, while the present applicant Mahadeo Singh challenged the grant or maintenance to Smt. Nirmala Devi. Smt. Nirmala Devi herself in her revision claimed a higher amount as maintenance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the revision filed by Mahadeo Singh but partly allowed the revision filed by Smt. Nirmala Devi enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 300/- per month from Rs. 200/- per month and further directing that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C.

(3.) In this revision the learned Counsel for the applicant-revisionist asserted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in granting maintenance from the date of application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. instead from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. His contention is that such an order, in the absence of any reason in support of that. was not legal and valid. It has also been contended that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was wrong in enhancing the maintenance from Rs, 200/- per month to Rs. 300/- per month.