1. Inherent power of this Court is invoked by the applicant-husband whose limited submission is that the revisional Court fell in serious error in making the order of the learned Magistrate enhancing the maintenance initially granted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Code” for short) effective from the date of the application.

2. Few un-controverted facts only need be stated :

3. Non-applicant 1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and non-applicant 2 is the son born from the wedlock.

4. The wife and son preferred Miscellaneous Criminal Application 50/2006 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, which came to be allowed and while the wife was granted monthly maintenance of Rs.800/- the son was granted monthly maintenance of Rs.600/-.

5. The wife and son moved an application under Section 127 of the Code (Miscellaneous Criminal Case 179/2011) seeking enhancement of maintenance. This application was partly allowed and the husband was directed to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the son from the date of the order.

6. The husband did not step into the witness box. The learned Magistrate noted that when the application under Section 125 of the Code was decided, the net salary of the husband was Rs.7,839/- per month, while the salary certificates placed on record in enhancement proceedings disclosed that the husband was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month in 2014. Incidentally, the salary certificate for June 2017, which is placed on record in this application, reveals that the gross salary of the husband is Rs.42,483/- and the net salary is Rs.32,900/-. The learned Magistrate took notice of the inflation and the ever spiralling cost of living and recorded a finding, and rightly so, that the wife and the son are entitled to enhancement of maintenance.

7. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate, the wife and the son preferred Criminal Revision 81/2016 which came to be partly allowed by the judgment and order impugned and the enhanced maintenance was made effective from the date of the application.

8. The reasons recorded by the revisional Court for granting maintenance from the date of the application are discernible in paragraph 13 of the judgment and order impugned, which reads thus :

“13. From the above cited pronouncement, it is clear that there is no an embargo for enhancing maintenance allowance from the date of application. From the impugned judgment and order it is manifest that the Trial Court has not assigned any reason whatsoever for giving enhancement in the maintenance allowance from the date of order. Award of enhanced maintenance from the date of application is the principle and award of enhanced maintenance from the date of order is an exception. The present case to my mind does not fall within an exception. Under such premise, I find that the impugned order to the extent of its effect is not sustainable. Having considered the material on record, I find that the trial Court should have enhanced maintenance allowance from the date of the application. Therefore, I find that the impugned order to this extent needs to be interfered by this Court.”

9. Shri Ved Deshpande, learned Counsel for the applicant-husband has a two fold submission to make. The first submission is that ordinarily the enhanced maintenance is to be awarded from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. The other submission is that even if it is assumed, arguendo, that maintenance could be made effective from the date of the application, reasons will have to be recorded for such a direction, which the revisional Court failed to do.

10. Shri Ved Deshpande invites my attention to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Shaikh Rabbani Shaikh Razak v. Farjana Begum Shaikh Rabbani, 2014 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 95 and in particular to paragraph 15 which reads thus :

“15. There is, however, one aspect of the matter, which n