ROMA RANI Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been filed seeking quashing of orders dated 01.05.2012 and 26.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana respectively in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code whereby the petitioner has been allowed maintenance allowance @ Rs.2000/- per month with effect from the date of order i.e. 01.05.2012 instead of from the date of petition i.e. 13.06.2002.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for grant of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code were disposed of by the trial Court on the basis of statements of the parties but the trial Court committed a grave error in failing to award maintenance from the date of petition which remained pending in the Court for the last 10 years. It is further submitted that the revisional Court failed to rectify the error committed by the trial Court, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below may be modified by allowing maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition instead of date of order. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no objection if the amount of interim maintenance paid to her is adjusted out of the arrears payable @ Rs.2000/- per month.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, has submitted that as the parties arrived at a settlement and suffered their statements in pursuance thereof, the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that she is entitled to get maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month from the date of petition whereas the maintenance is payable to her from the date of order only. It is further submitted that the respondent is working as a daily wager in Municipal Corporation at Saharanpur and is drawing wages to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month. He has to put lot of efforts by working after his duty hours in the Municipal Corporation to earn livelihood for himself and pay maintenance to the petitioner. The respondent made a statement to pay maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month in order to settle the dispute once forever and there was no such understanding between the parties that maintenance at that rate shall be payable from the date of petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Indisputably, the proceedings for grant of maintenance were initiated by the petitioner-wife in June, 2002. On 01.05.2012, the respondent made a statement before the trial Court and a relevant extract thereof reads as follows:-