SHOBHA BHAURAO RANE Vs. BHAURAO GULABRAO RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants sought maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court vide judgment dated 3-6-1995 had granted maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 150/- each per month to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application. This order was challenged by the applicants as also respondent by filing separate revisions which were disposed of vide common judgment dated 16-3-1999. The revision filed by the applicant-wife was dismissed, but the revision filed by the respondent-husband was partly allowed inasmuch as the amount of maintenance was payable from the date of order.

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate for the applicants and learned Advocate for the respondent. The limited controversy in this revision is whether the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of order or from the date of filing of application. The trial Court had ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of filing of application whereas the revisional Court ordered it from the date of order relying upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in charanjit Singh v. Inderjit Kaur, (1988) II DMC 549. Learned Advocate for the applicants has placed before me a Division Bench ruling of this Court in mangal Pandharinath Sat he vs. Pandharinath Arjun Sathe in, 1993 Mh. LJ. 788, wherein it has been laid down that the wife would be entitled for maintenance from the date of application, but it would be open for the contesting respondent to prove otherwise. Relying upon the judgment of learned single Judge in Sharda w/o Gunwantrao Kadu v. Cunwantrao Panjabrao kadu in, 1989 Mh. L. J. 1031, wherein reliance was placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh high Court in Ku. Lachhmani v. Ramu, 1983 Crimes 590, it was observed that-

(3.) I have also taken a similar view in Wajed Khan s/o Maheboob khan vs. Mohasinabi d/o Mustafa Khan and another, 2001 (4) Mh. LJ. 94 = 2002 All MR (Cri) 1978. In Kamalabai khanderao Thete and another v. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete, 1990 Mh. LJ. 108 and in kedari Shankarrao Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra and another, 1992 (1) M. L. R. 359 also the view taken is that as a normal rule the maintenance should be granted from the date of application unless there are justifiable reasons for departing from this normal rule in exceptional circumstances due to which the grant of maintenance may be from subsequent date. These rulings referred to above apply with equal force to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.