SUSMITA MOHANTY Vs. RABINDRA NATH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner calls in question legality of the direction given by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur that she was entitled to maintenance from 3-11-1992, i.e., the date of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surada (in short, the JMFC while disposing of the application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code), and not from 5-2-1991, i.e. the date of application for maintenance as was originally directed by the learned JMFC.

(2.) Detailed reference to the factual aspects is not necessary in view of the limited nature of controversy. Essential factual position is as follow Petitioner filed an application for maintenance in terms of Sec 125 of the Code which was allowed -and the opposite party was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of initiation of the proceeding by the learned JMFC, Surada. In revision the quantum was maintained but the reversional Court held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of application. It was observed that Sec. 125 (2) mandates reasons to be recorded in writing as to why the maintenance is to be granted from the date of application and not from the date of order. It was observed that the normal rule is to grant maintenance from the date of order and in exceptional cases only, for reasons to be recorded, maintenance can be granted from the date of application. It was observed that no prayer was made in the application to grant maintenance from the date initiation of the proceeding and therefore grant of maintenance from the date of application was not warranted.

(3.) According to Mr. R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioner, the revisional Court has lost sight of the purpose of enactment of Sec. 125 which was intended to grant relief to destitute persons, and too a technical view would be counter-productive. According to him, observation of revisional Court that no prayer was made for grant of maintenance from the date of application, is also not factually correct because on a bare reading of the application itself such a plea was fathomable. According to learned counsel for the opposite parties, approach of revisional Court is proper and no interference is warranted.