Sau. Priti W/O Vishal Uike @ Priti ... vs Vishal S/O Rameshrao Uike
2017 Latest Caselaw 3820 Bom

                                                    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

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.

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