AMEEN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.9.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent Praveen Bano and ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of application instead of date of order.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are these. Mst. Fakra was married to Ameen Khan sometimes in the year 1981. Praveen Bano was born of the wedlock. The marital relations of the husband and wife did not go well. Mst. Fakra filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code alleging that she was turned out of house and was neglected by her husband. In that application maintenance for daughter was also claimed. The husband came out with the case that he had already divorced his wife and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Evidence was produced by both the parties. The learned Judicial Magistrate partly allowed the application and granted maintenance to the wife upto the date of the divorce. The application for maintenance of the minor daughter was rejected. This order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge who set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for deciding afresh as regards the maintenance to the daughter. Thereafter vide order dated 12.6.1997 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the daughter was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 300/ - per month from 12.6.1997 i.e. the date of order. That order was challenged by preferring revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh who vide impugned order held thai daughter was entitled to maintenance from the date of application i.e. w.e.f. 2.12.1988.

(3.) AS against this Mr. Sandhu contends that the learned Sessions Judge has decided the matter on the basis of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Savita Sharma v. Shri Krishan Murari, 1990 (1) RLR 400, and there is no illegality in the order.