VIKAS KUMAR Vs. JYOTI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 3500/- to his wife and Rs. 1200/- to his female child aged 17 years every month. The petitioner has challenged the above order passed by the trial court under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit, referring to the cross examination portion of the wife that she in fact wanted to live with the petitioner herein if he sets up a separate establishment. On the basis of evidence of the wife, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the wife was not driven away from the matrimonial home and, therefore,she is not entitled to maintenance. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner need not pay maintenance from the date of the petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is a settled law that the wife and children are entitled to maintenance from the date of the application and not from the date of the order. He would further submit that the evidence of the wife was misread to contend that the husband has not driven away the wife from the matrimonial home.