JUDGMENT
R.K. Batta, J.
1. The applicants sought maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court vide judgment dated 3-6-1995 had granted maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 150/- each per month to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application. This order was challenged by the applicants as also respondent by filing separate revisions which were disposed of vide common judgment dated 16-3-1999. The revision filed by the applicant-wife was dismissed, but the revision filed by the respondent-husband was partly allowed inasmuch as the amount of maintenance was payable from the date of order.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned Advocate for the respondent. The limited controversy in this revision is whether the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of order or from the date of filing of application. The trial Court had ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of filing of application whereas the revisional Court ordered it from the date of order relying upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Charanjit Singh v. Inderjit Kaur, (1988) II DMC 549. Learned Advocate for the applicants has placed before me a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Mangal Pandharinath Sathe v. Pandharinath Arjun Sathe reported in 7993 Mh.L.J. 788, wherein it has been laid down that the wife would be entitled for maintenance from the date of application, but it would be open for the contesting respondent to prove otherwise. Relying upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in Sharda w/o Gunwantrao Kadu v. Gunwantrao Panjabrao Kadu reported in 7959 Mh.LJ. 1031, wherein reliance was placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ku. Lachhmani v. Ramu, reported in 7953 Crimes 590, it was observed that:–
“Considering the object behind Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. I find it difficult to take a view that the law mandates payment of maintenance allowance normally from the date of order and payment from the date of application is made only exceptional for reasons to be
recorded in writing. In this connection, useful reference may be made to the following apt observations – with which I respectfully concur – in the case of Mani v. Esther, 1980 Kerala Law Times 969.”
The Division Bench in Mangal Pandharinath Sathe v. Pandharinath Arjun Sathe (supra) found that the wife was constrained to leave the matrimonial home because of ill treatment and was residing with her parents; she had no
source of income and she was unable to maintain herself. The petition for maintenance was pending in the trial Court for nearly four years. During these four years, the wife was required to depend upon her parents for her maintenance although the respondent has been gainfully employed and was under obligation to maintain his wife. It was held that the respondent having failed and neglected to maintain his wife who was unable to maintain herself, the wife would be entitled for maintenance from the date of application. It was further pointed out that it is, however, open to the contesting respondent to prove otherwise.
3.I have also taken a similar view in Wajed Khan s/o Maheboob Khan v. Mohasinabi d/o Mustafa Khan and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Mh.LJ. 94 = 2002 All MR (Cri) 1978. In Kamalabai Khanderao Thete and Anr. v. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete reported in 7990 Mh.LJ. 108 and in Kedari Shankarrao Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 7992 (1) M.L.R. 359 also the view taken is that as a normal rule the maintenance should be granted from the date of application unless there are justifiable reasons for departing from this normal rule in exceptional circumstances due to which the grant of maintenance may be from subsequent date. These rulings referred to above apply with equal force to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.
4. The application in the case under consideration was filed on 9-8-1992 and it was disposed of after about three years. The trial Court found that the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain the applicants and the applicants were unable to maintain themselves. Applicant No. 3 was born on 3-12-1992. Obviously even when the applicant No. 3 was in womb, extra nourishment was required by the child in womb and for which there would be obviously additional expenditure incurred due to the child being in womb. Therefore, in my opinion, in the case of all applicants the maintenance should have been granted from the date of application, which was granted by the trial Court. But, the appellate Court on the strength of judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court changed the order of maintenance from the date of order. The parties did not bring to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the position of law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mangal Pandharinath Sathe v. Pandharinath Sathe (cited supra).
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16-3-1999 is hereby set aside and the order of J. M. F. C. dated 3-6-1995 is hereby restored.