Bombay High Court
Maya Dhanraj Umare vs Dhanraj Nana Umare on 22 January, 2024
Author: M.W. Chandwani
Bench: M.W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:977
Judgment 1 40-J.Cri.Rev.No.216.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2023
Sau. Maya Dhanraj Umare,
Aged About - 53 Years,
Occupation - Household,
R/o. Bhosa,
Tq. and District -Yavatmal. .... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
Dhanraj Nana Umare,
Age About 55 Years,
Occupation - Service (Teacher),
R/O. Kumbha, Zillha Parishad
School, Kanada, Tq. Maregaon,
District - Yavatmal. .... NON-APPLICANT
______________________________________________________________
Mrs. Archana Murrey, Advocate(appointed) for Applicant.
Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for Non-applicant.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED : JANUARY 22, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The short question involved in this application is that
whether under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short the 'Cr.P.C.') enhanced maintenance is to be granted from the date
of order or from the date of application. The applicant is wife of the
Judgment 2 40-J.Cri.Rev.No.216.2023.odt
non-applicant. The applicant and her son were granted maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- each per month. The applicant and her son filed an
application before the learned Family Court, Yavatmal under Section
127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount from
Rs.6,000/- to 40,000/- per month for both. The application was
contested by the non-applicant husband. After appreciating the
material available on record, the learned Family Court by impugned
order enhanced the maintenance amount of applicant from Rs.3,000/-
to Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of order i.e. from 18.11.2022,
whereas, the claim of son of the applicant came to be refused on the
ground of his attaining majority. The applicant has challenged the
impugned order only on limited ground that she has not been awarded
enhanced maintenance from the date of application.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned
Counsel for the non-applicant and perused the impugned order.
4. The issue is no more res integra. This Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of decisions have held that the
maintenance should be granted from the date of application unless the
Court gives specific reason for granting the maintenance from the date
of order instead of the date of application.
Judgment 3 40-J.Cri.Rev.No.216.2023.odt
5. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel for the
applicant as well as non-applicant, I perused the judgment particularly
para No.40, which is reproduced as under :
"40. Considering all these aspects in my opinion it
would be just and proper to enhance the maintenance
of the petitioner No.1 from Rs.3,000/- per month to
Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of this order. At
present as the petitioner No.1 is recovering
Rs.13,000/- per month from the respondent towards
the maintenance of herself and petitioner No.2, I am
inclined to grant the enhanced maintenance from the
date of this order. It is made clear that this amount of
enhanced maintenance is inclusive of interim
maintenance granted in appeal filed against judgment
passed in petition for restitution of conjugal rights and
the rent granted in PWDV Act proceeding. Hence, I
answer point No.1 and 2 in Cril.Misc.A.No.11/2021 in
affirmative to the extent of petitioner No.1 only and
point No.1 in Cril.Misc.A.No.22/2022 in affirmative."
6. Thus, from the above said observation, it is apparent that
though initially, the applicant was granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/-
per month, but considering the order of maintenance in other
proceedings, the learned Judge of the Family Court has recorded that
the applicant was getting Rs.13,000/- per month towards maintenance
during pendency of the application for enhancement of maintenance.
This fact weighed in the mind of learned Judge of the Family Court for
enhancing the maintenance amount of the applicant from the date of
order instead of the date of application.
Judgment 4 40-J.Cri.Rev.No.216.2023.odt
7. I see no error in the order of learned Judge of the Family
Court. When during pendency of the application for enhancement of
maintenance, the applicant was getting Rs.13,000/- per month towards
maintenance in all proceedings, therefore, the Family Court by giving
specific reason, has rightly enhanced the maintenance amount from the
date of order. Thus, no interference is required at the hands of this
Court. The application is sans merit hence, it is dismissed.
8. The professional fees of the learned appointed Counsel for
the applicant be quantified and paid in accordance with rules.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/01/2024 19:19:11
