NITHA RANJAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. KALPANA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/08/2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in its revisional jurisdiction in Crl. Motion No. 209/2001. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revisional application which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, dated 2 3/03/2001 in T.R. No. 295/99 whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the petition under S. 125, Cr. P.C in part awarding a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month in favour of the wife with effect from the date of order i.e. 23/03/2001. Being aggrieved by that order, the wife had filed the said revisional application on the ground that the order ought to have taken effect from the date of application and not from the date of order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted this contention of the revisional applicant wife and passed the impugned order by awarding the maintenance at the rate at which the learned A.C.J.M. awarded it giving its effect from the date of application instead of the date of the order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that both the sons of the petitioner-wife were minor being aged about 19 years and 15 years at the time of filing of the application and hence those two sons were found entitled to get maintenance till they attained majority.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order, the husband has preferred this revisional application under S. 401 read with S. 482 of Cr. P.C. challenging the said order as illegal and improper.

(3.) In the first place, Mr. Ghosh contends that according to S. 125(2) Cr. P.C. the maintenance allowance is payable from the date of order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the filing of the application for maintenance. According to Mr. Ghosh, in view of such style and language of the provisions, the Court below ought to have awarded the maintenance with effect from the date of order and if he took different view considered it necessary to award maintenance w.e.f. the date of application, then he was under an obligation to assign sufficient reason in support of such finding.