AMRINDER KUMAR Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only a few facts need to be stated in order to deal with the points arising in Cr1. Misc. No. 7044-M of 1989 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Amrinder Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the husband) and in Cr1. Revision No. 1022 of 1989 filed by Smt. Usha Rani (herein after referred to as the wifeT). Usha Rani and Amrinder Kumar were married on November 15, 1985. For various reasons which are not necessary to state, the relations between the parties became strained and the parties have been living separately from each other since about April 1987. The wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on June 9, 1987. It was contested by the husband. By order dated June 8, 1989, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, fixed Rs. 400/- per mensem as maintenance and directed that the same shall be payable from the date of the petition i.e. June 9, 1987. He further directed that the interim maintenance already paid under orders of the court will be adjusted. The husband filed a revision against the said order. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by order dated August 9,1989. However, he reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 400/- per mensem to Rs. 300/- per mensem. The husband filed the present petition under Section 482 for quashing the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge. The wife filed a revision for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reducing the amount of maintenance.

(2.) Shri V.K. Kataria, learned counsel for the husband, confined his prayer to making the order effective not from the date of the petition but from the date of passing of the order. He placed reliance on Rameshwar v. Ramibai and Arun Kumar v. Kamlesh Kumari.

(3.) Shri J.C. Nagpal, learned counsel for the wife, on the other hand, contended that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the date of the petition. He placed his reliance on Bhupinder Singh v. Inderjit Kaur. He also contended that it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have appraised the material and reduced the amount of maintenance in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, the amount fixed by the learned Magistrate should be restored.