DEEPA Vs. NANDKISHORE S O DOMAJI ZADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Admit. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, heard forthwith. Notices in fact were issued in this matter for disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners has placed before me the judgment of the trial Court which shows that there was absolutely no discussion or reasoning as to why the maintenance has been awarded from the date of order and not from the date of application. The revisional Court found that there was no need to interfere on this question since the order in question was neither illegal nor perverse nor arbitrary.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners, after placing reliance on (Nachhattar Singh v. Harjinder Kaur and another), reported in 1995 Cri. L. J. 2726; (Kamalabai Khanderao Thete and another v. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete), reported in 1989 (1) Bom. C. R. 418 : 1990 Mh. L. J. 108; (Kedari s/o Shankarrao Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra), reported in 1992 (1) Mah. L. R. 359; and (Gangabai v. Shivram), reported in 1989 Cri. L. J. NOC 154, has urged before me that the maintenance in the case under consideration should have been granted from the date of application and there was no reason whatsover to deny the same to the petitioners.