CHIKKAMMA ALIAS PARVATHAMMA Vs. YERRISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are the wife and daughter of the 1st respondent, filed an M.C. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking as maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.400/- respectively per month from the 1st respondent. After contest by the 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs.400/- per month as maintenance to the 1st petitioner and Rs.300/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to them and aggrieved by the direction to pay the maintenance from the date of order, but not from the date of petition, petitioners preferred a revision, which was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that both the Courts below were in error in awarding maintenance to the petitioners only from the date of order and not from the date of the filing of the petition, that too without recording any reasons, by placing strong reliance on Dasyam Elizabath Rani and others v. Dasyam Pradeep Kumar and another, 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 539 (AP) and Gnanaselvi and others v. Illavarasan, 1999 Crl.LJ 1008, in support of his contention. The contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is that in view of the wording in Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. since the Magistrate, in exercise of the discretion vested in him, awarded maintenance from for the date of order, no reasons need be assigned for awarding maintenance from the date of order, and it is only when the Magistrate feels it expedient to award maintenance from the date of petition, should he give reason by placing strong reliance on Tulasi alias Thulja Bai v. Laxman Rao and others, 1996 Crl.LJ 1160, in support of his contention.

(3.) Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. reads: "..........such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered from the date of application for maintenance." It is clear from the above sub-section that the order for payment of maintenance should be effective from the date of order and the exception is ordering payment from the date of petition. Since awarding maintenance from the date of petition seems to be an exception to the normal rule recording reasons would be necessary only when Magistrate feels it expedient to order payment of maintenance from the date of petition. That should be so can also be seen from the fact that petitioners in an petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have a right to seek interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by them. When they failed to file a petition seeking interim maintenance, they cannot blame the Court for not awarding maintenance from the date of petition.