SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.K.AGRAWAL
Samaydin – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A, Sri Anoop Ghosh and have perused both the orders also.

2. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate granting maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the respondent from the date of the application has been modified by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, only to extent of reducing the amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/-.

3. On examination of both the judgments. I do not find any serious infirmity in them nor any such infirmity was pointed out on behalf of the applicant. It is only urged that maintenance amount should be fixed from the date of the order as the law normally requires. If the Court intends to grant maintenance from the date of application, court must record its reasons for doing so. The contention had some force. Sub-section (2) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. spells as under:

"(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance"

4. From an examination of the language of this sub-section it clearly follows that in normal circumstances the maintenance must be granted from the date of the order. In only extr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top