JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. (Oral) - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is the husband is impugning consistent findings of the two courts below, whereby the Magistrate awarded maintenance to her @ Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of the application and which was confirmed in the revision.

4. The learned advocate for the applicant vehemently submitted by referring to the decisions in the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another, 2015 ALL RC(Cri.) 376 (SC) , that both the courts below have committed a gross illegality in not assigning any reason as to why the maintenance was being granted from the date of the application which was mandatory by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section 2 of section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 For this reason alone the orders passed by both the courts below suffer from gross illegality.

5. The learned advocate further submitted that in a subsequent proceeding preferred by the respondent under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a lump-sum alimony has been awarded to her and even the petitioner is entitled to se