Smt. Femida vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

Nisha Gupta, J.—These revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 9th July, 2010 to the extent of grant of maintenance from the date of order instead of from the date of filing of the application. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court has awarded Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance from the date of the petition, but revisional court has amended the order and it has been ordered to be paid from the date of order instead of date of filing of the application, hence, these revision petitions.

The contention of the present petitioner is that Court below has rightly ordered the maintenance from the date of the application and no reasons have been mentioned by the revisional court to award it from the date of the order and further it has also been contended that Rs. 1000/- per month is a very merger amount, hence, it should also be adequately enhanced.

Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

It is true that the Court below has awarded the maintenance from the date of the application, but no reasons have been mentioned, which was obligatory as per the provisions of Section 125(2) and revisional court has rightly considered the fact that when no reasons have been narrated ordering the maintenance from the date of the application under the provisions of Section 125 sub-clause (2), it should be ordered to be paid from the date of the order and there is no infirmity in the order of revisional court. It is based on legal provisions provided u/s 125 sub-clause (2).

The other contention of the present petitioner is that amount of maintenance be suitably enhanced. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has awarded Rs. 1000/- maintenance vide order dated 23rd April, 2009. Present petitioner has not assailed this order by way of revision before the Competent Court. It was assailed by the respondent by way of revision and in this petition, the present petitioner has only assailed the order dated 9.7.2010 of the revisional court, hence, when the order dated 23rd April, 2009, the original order passed on the application u/s 125 has not been assailed by the present, the contention of the present petitioner for enhancing of the maintenance, is un-sustainable in these revision petitions. In view of above, both the revision petitions are liable to be rejected and the same are hereby rejected.