JUDGMENT
A.S. Tripathi, J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge of Guna, whereby the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month was allowed to the non-petitioner from the date of the application, i.e., from 8th of October, 1984.
2. Heard Shri B. Raj Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband and Shri B.L. Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the non-petitioner/wife and perused the record.
3. The fact of marriage is not disputed. It is also not disputed that non-petitioner Kumari Santosh is the daughter of the petitioner from the non-petitioner, Angoori Bai. The claim application for maintenance was moved on 1.10.84. The learned Trial Magistrate had allowed the application for maintenance of Kumari Santosh, the daughter of the petitioner and granted maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The claim of the non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai was rejected on the ground that she had left the house of her husband on her own accord. Aggrieved by this order, two revisions were filed which were heard by Additional Sessions Judge of Guna and it was held that the non-petitioner Angoori Bai was also entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the application, besides the maintenance being allowed to her daughter Kumari Santosh at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month by the Trial Court.
4. It is a fact that the petitioner was married to non-petitioner Angoori Bai long back and the daughter Kumari Santosh was begotten from their wedlock. The non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai had taken a plea that she had to leave the house of her husband on account of torture being made at her husband’s house, alongwith her daughter Kumari Santosh. She was unable to maintain herself and her daughter. The Trial Court found that the non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai had left the house of her husband on her own accord without any reason and accordingly her claim for maintenance was disallowed. However, the Trial Court held that the daughter of the non-petitioner Angoori Bai named Kumari Santosh is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month.
5. The Revisional Court, i.e., the Court of Additional Sessions Judge found that the wife was also entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and the same was allowed. After hearing Counsel for both the parties and on perusing the record of the Courts below, two things are clear; first, the marriage is not disputed and second, that the non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai was compelled in the circumstances on account of torture to leave the house of her husband and to live separately. To fill the belly, non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai had to do some domestic work here and there and also to sell some petty articles to maintain her daughter. That point was overlooked by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, i.e., the Court of Additional Sessions Judge had rightly held that non-petitioner Angoori Bai was also entitled to maintenance even if she was put in some work here and there.
6. There is no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai had to leave the house of her husband on account of torture and she was also entitled to claim maintenance. The quantum of maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month is minimum which could not be denied in the circumstances of the case.
7. The petitioner had means to pay maintenance allowed by the Court below. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the maintenance granted from the date of the application was not justified as there is no specific reason to grant the same; the maintenance however could be allowed from the date of the order. The maintenance has been allowed from 8th of October, 1984 which is the date of the application. No specific reasons have been given by the Court below for granting maintenance from the date of the application. In the normal course, maintenance is to be allowed from the date of the order. In these circumstances, I am agree with the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner that proper order should have been is to allow maintenance from the date of the order passed by the Court below, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge, Guna.
8. The order of the Court below is modified to the extent that the maintenance allowed to the non-petitioner Mst. Angoori Bai shall be with effect from the date of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, i.e., from 22nd of August, 1987 onwards. It is directed that the arrears of maintenance so allowed, shall be paid within two months from the date of this order and future maintenance shall be paid regularly every month as allowed by the Court below. Except the modification in the order passed by the Court below as indicated above, this revision is dismissed.