Prem Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 940 Jhar

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      Cr. Revision No.314 of 2019
                                            ....

               Prem Kumari                                        ....    Petitioner
                                            Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Prem Chandra Roy                                 .... Opp. Parties
                                            ....
               CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

              For the Petitioner               : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv.
              For the State                    : Mr. Arup Dey, APP
              For the O.P. No.2                : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
                                               ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

....

07/09.03.2022 Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

This revision application has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Maintenance Case No.230 of 2016, whereby the husband has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor son.

The other parameter is not in dispute save and except the quantum of maintenance.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the court below has taken Rs.26,000/- per month as gross salary of the husband as he is employee of Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper. Considering the same, quantum of maintenance has been awarded.

In view of above fact, this Court finds no reasonable reason to interfere with the said quantum of maintenance.

However, the maintenance has been awarded from the date of order. The mandate of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 in the case of Rajneesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. is clear that it should be from the date of application.

In view of the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the maintenance amount will be payable from the date of filing of application.

With above modification and directions, the present criminal revision stands disposed of.

I.A. for limitation, also stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/