1 revn17.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.17/2016
1. Sau Priti w/o Vishal Uike, @ Priti
d/o Sonbaji Uike, aged about 26 years,
Occ. Household.
2. Chi. Sumer s/o Vishal Uike,
aged 3 years, Occ. Nil, Minor through
his mother applicant no.1, natural
guardian.
Both r/o Plot No. 22, Lonkheri,
Tq. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
Vishal s/o Rameshrao Uike,
aged about 24 years, Occ. Driver,
r/o Chanakyapuram Vasti, New Narsala
Road, Nagpur, Tq. Dist. Nagpur. ...NON APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. H. Tekam, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. N. S. Deshpande, Advocate for non applicant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 30.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed mistake in not granting maintenance from the date of application. He also relied ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:33:59 ::: 2 revn17.16.odt upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shail Kumari Devi & anr. vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak; reported in II (2008) DMC 363 (SC) and Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr. vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & anr. reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 376 (SC).
3. As against this Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the non applicant submitted that the impugned order is passed by the learned Family Court since it was the view of the learned Family Court that income of the present non applicant is not sufficient.
4. Filing of application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not at all disputed. The maintenance claimed by the present applicant is at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month. However, the said application was filed on 26.09.2012. On 06.05.2015, after appreciating the pleadings as well as various documents filed on record, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed the non applicant to pay maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicant no.2. However, instead of granting maintenance from the date of the application, he has granted the same from the date of the order. ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:33:59 :::
3 revn17.16.odt
5. The aforesaid order is not challenged by the husband. Thus, the quantum of maintenance has reached to its finality. However, the prayer of the present applicants is that the maintenance should from the date of the application.
6. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court dated 06.05.2015 needs to be modified. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled to receive the maintenance at the rate as directed by the order dated 06.05.2015 from 26.09.2012 instead of 06.05.2015.
The revision application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:33:59 :::