SONAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajiv Sawhney, Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rishu Bhartiya, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Shashank Kumar, Learned counsel for opposite party No.2, and Shri Surendra Singh, Learned AGA for the state.

(2.) The sole grievance raised by the Learned counsel for the applicant is to the extent that the application of the applicant for grant of interim maintenance, pending decision on proceedings under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. filed on 5/8/2024, has been allowed by means of the impugned order dtd. 3/4/2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No.573 of 2023 (Smt. Sonam Yadav vs. Uttejan Yadav), from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that normally applications for maintenance should be allowed from the date of the application. Learned counsel further states that this direction of the Supreme Court is also applicable on applications for grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the main application for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.