LAWS(MPH)-1982-11-15

LACHHMANI Vs. RAMU

Decided On November 10, 1982
KU.LACHHMANI Appellant
V/S
RAMU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is the minor daughters revision against the lower revisional Courts order granted her maintenance amount against her father under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code from the date of the order i.e. from 9-12-81 and not from the date of her petition as bad been initially allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) The minor daughter bad filed the application against her father viz, the present non-applicant, for grant of monthly maintenance amount. The father had denied the paternity of the child; and as such, her right to claim any maintenance amount. The trial Court found that the child was a legitimate one; and as such, the trial Court allowed her monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- payable by the present applicants father, from the date of her application i.e. from 8-7-75. The father being aggrieved, preferred the revision in the lower revisional Court. The lower revisional Court maintained the trial Courts order in so far as the childs right for maintenance against the father was concerned. Finding regarding the paternity of the child was upheld by the lower revisional Court. Monthly maintenance too was found to be appropriate. However, since, the trial Court had given no special reasons for allowing the maintenance amount from the date of the childs petition, the trial Courts order in this regard was modified; and it was ordered that the child was entitled to the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- from the date of the order i.e. from 9- 12-81 and not from the date of the application i.e. 8-7-75. Now, the child has preferred the present revision against the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant-child has urged that the lower revisional Court was wrong in interfering with the trial Courts order in the matter as to from what date the maintenance amount, should be given. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is stated to be proper. It is vehemently before me that there was no justification for the lower revisional Court to modify the trial Courts order in the matter of the date of enforcement of the order of maintenance.