Anita Nargotra and Others vs Shri Rajinder Nargotra

S.K. Gupta, J.—This Revision is directed against order dated 8-3-2001 formulated by Sub-Registrar Judicial Magistrate, ist Class, Jammu,

whereby he has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,200/- per month as maintenance allowance to the wife and two minor children payable from the date

of the order.

Facts relevant for the disposal of this Revision Petition put tersely are that Mrs. Anita Nargotra for hereself and guardian of two minor

daughters, Arti and Rucheeta, commenced a petition u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (1983 A.D) (hereafter referred to as Code). In

that petition maintenance was claimed of the three neglected and refused to be maintained by the respondent, Rajinder Nargotra. Onm the filing of

the disclaimer hypersist.ed the grant of the maintenance allowance to the petitioners and after recording the evidence and hearing the rival

contentions of the parties, the Judicial Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/-per month as maintenance payable from the date of the order.

The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the Judicial magistrate has allowed maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of

application without any justification or assigning any reason and has occasioned serious prejudice to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the

petitioners are contesting claim for maintenance since 1985 and are surviving with a meagure amount of allowance of Rs. 400/- granted as interim

maintenance. This aspect has also been considered by the Judicial Magistrate while granting the maintenance from the date of order instead of from

the date of application.

The expression ""date of the order"" signifies the date on which the maintenance was granted. Un-der Section 488 (2) of the code, ""maintenance

allowance shall le payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance"". The Sub-section clearly

directs that on proof of the allegation made by he wife, such allowance shall accue from the date of the order. In other words, it must be payable

from that date. It is this power of judicous discretion of the Magistrate, which shall be exercised in such case and if he considers that the

circumstances justify as to the grant of maintenance as on prior to the date of the order viz, from the date of the application, he has been fully

empowered u/s 488 (2) of the code to make such an order.

It, therefore, follows, ordinarily the maintenance is to be ordered from the date of the passing of the order. Where there are circumstances

justifying it, can be ordered from the date of application. The Trial Magistrate, therefore, can award maintenance either from the date of application

or from the date of order taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Where the husband has been paying interim

maintenance to his wife and children, maintenance, in such circumstances, normally should not be granted from the date of the application unless

there is justifiable and cogent reasons given by the wife. It is clearly gatherable from the record that during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 488

Cr. P.C interim maintenance of Rs. 400/- (Rs. 200/- to the wife and Rs. 100/- each to two minor daughters) per month was awarded by the

Court. This itself provided sufficient and justifiable reasons for the Trial Magistrate to pass an order of maintenance on finality of the proceedings

from the date of the order and not from the date of application.

For the aforesaid reasons there is no merit in this Revision and is hereby dismissed, and the order dated 8-3-2001 passed by the Trial

Magistrate granting mainte nance from the date of the order in favour of the petitioners is hereby upheld. Record in favour of the pe titioners is

hereby upheld. Record shall be remitted back to the Trial Court.