The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of the application or the date of the order, as per the circumstances of the case, and the requirement to record reasons for the decision.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT B. DEO, J.

1. Inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) is invoked to challenge the judgment dated 11.12.2017 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-6, Amravati in Criminal Appeal 187/2017 whereby the monetary relief granted to the applicant under Section 19 and 20 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is made effective from the date of the order.

2. The applicant - who shall be hereinafter referred to as the wife, preferred an application under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protective restraint order under Section 18 and monetary relief under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act.

3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 12 of the DV Act in its entirety vide judgment dated 09.10.2012.

4. The wife preferred Criminal Appeal 187 of 2012 which is partly allowed by judgment dated 11.12.2017 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-6, Amravati and the operative order reads thus:

ORDER:

(i) Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) Respondent/non applicant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 1000/- for residence and Rs. 2000/- for monetary relief per month i.e. total Rs. 3000/- p.m. to the appellant under sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women Against the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 within 10th day of each month from the date of this order.

(iii) R&P be sent to the learned trial court along with copy of this judgment.

(iv) Inform to learned trial court accordingly.

5. The wife is aggrieved to the extent the monetary relief is not made effective from the date of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act. It is necessary to mention that the respondent-husband also challenged the judgment in appeal in Criminal Revision Application 86 of 2019 which is dismissed (Coram: Mrs. Sawpna Joshi, J.) by this Court order vide order dated 17.01.2020 which reads thus:

Applicant’s advocate absent. On last occasion also, he was absent.

Criminal Revision Application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the wife that the learned Sessions Judge erred in giving effect to the monetary relief from the date of the order is well merited. Notably, the learned Sessions Judge has not spelt out any reason for not giving effect to the monetary relief from the date of the application.

7. It would be necessary to note certain decisions of the Apex Court which have bearing on the issue involved.

8. In Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 the Supreme Court articulates thus:

“30. Now, no direct decision of this Court is available on the point as to from which date a Magistrate may order payment of maintenance to wife, children or parents. We may, however, refer to decisions of some High Courts.

31. It seems that there is a cleavage of opinion on the question. According to one view, since sub-section (2) of Section 125 declares that maintenance shall be payable “from the date of the order” or “if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance” normal rule is that a Magistrate should pass an order directing payment of maintenance only from the date of the order. If he decides to deviate that course and makes an order granting maintenance not from the date of the order but from the date of application for maintenance, he must record reasons in support of such order [vide Mohd. Inaytullah Khan vs. Salma Bano, Rameshwar vs. Ramibai, Lachhmani vs. Ramu, Qamruddin vs. Smt. Rashida, Shyamlal vs. Mansha Bai, Mohd. Ismail vs. Bilquees Bano, Nitha Ranjan Chakraborty vs. Smt. Kalpana Chakraborty and Samaydin vs. State of U.P.

32. The High Court, in the impugned order, also referred to a decision in Bijay Kapri vs. Kanishta Devi wherein it was held that such order could be necessitated if the party shows “dire need’ of the money for the purpose of maintaining herself for which she had raised debts during the period when the application had been pending. No such material had been brought on record. Rather, the applicants