SAROJINI SARANGI Vs. DR. BISWANATH SARANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition relates to the date with effect from which the Petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance from the opposite party.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus:

(3.) FROM the principles laid down in ' the decided cases referred to above, it is clear that ordinarily direction to pay interim maintenance is to take effect from the date of filing of application for the same unless the Court in exercise of its discretion for good reasons decided differently. In the present case on perusal of the impugned order it appears that no reason whatsoever was stated by the trial Court for not allowing the prayer of the Petitioner from the date of her - first application. Indeed, it appears that the Court did not consider the matter of all. He passed the impugned order merely observing that he bad already made a direction for payment of interim maintenance in the other Misc. Case (Misc. Case No. 76 of 1984), overlooking the position that by the date of filing of the petition in that case the Petitioner had already filed an application for the self -same reliefs which was pending before the Court. Thus the factual and important aspect was ignored by the Court and thereby the impugned order was vitiated. I, may observe here that the Court below erred in taking up the subsequent application first. It would have been appropriate for him to take the first application, pass the direction therein and dispose of the second application referring to the order already passed. In that case the anomaly giving rise to the present grievance of the Petitioner could have been avoided.