MAHILA ASHA Vs. GOPALBABU NAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO points have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition arising out of proceedings Under Section 125, Cr. P. C.

(2.) IT appears that a petition was moved by Mahila Asha Under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance to herself and her son. The petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate and a sum of Rs. 500/- was awarded as maintenance for the wife and another sum of Rs. 500/- to the son from the date of the application. A Revision petition was preferred by the present respondent Gopalbabu. The revising Court partly allowed the revision petition by its order dated 27. 7. 1994 and reduced the amount of maintenance to the son to Rs. 400/- and directed that the amount be paid from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate instead of date of the application. The wife, original petitioner, Manila Asha has preferred this petition.

(3.) THE contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the learned Revising Court has wrongly revised the amount and secondly has directed that the amount be paid from the date of the order instead date of the application and as such the impugned order calls for interference by this Court. He placed reliance upon 1992 M. P. W. N. , Vol. Note 21, Bafatikhan v. Mahila Hasina Bano, where this Court held that the amount of maintenance cannot be awarded from the date of desertion. It may be awarded from the date of the application. The other case relied upon is 1994 M. P. W. N. Vol. II Note 22=11 (1994) DMC 614, Rakesh kumar Saxena v. Smt. Sadhana Saxena, where the amount of maintenance was suitably enhanced and was made payable from the date of the petition. In the same volume another decision has been reported as 1994 MPWN Vol. II Note 47, Shantibai v. Vishwanath, where the Court awarded the amount of maintenance from the date of the application. The Revising Court modified the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the application. The Court pointed out that the mere fact that no reason was given in the order for awarding the maintenance from the date of the application it would not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order. Besid (r) this nothing was laid down. Lastly, reliance was placed upon 1995 MPWN Vol. I Note 233, Smt. Radha Sujani v. Rameshkumar Sujani. This case does not appear to be on the point.