Maintenance can be awarded from the date of petition filing when neglect is established; Courts must consider the financial circumstances and needs of dependents.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.05.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Maintenance Case No. 109M of 2015, whereby learned Family Court has directed Opposite Party No.2/Suranjeet Kumar to make monthly payment of Rs. 6,000/- to the wife/petitioner and Rs. 4,000/- to his daughter towards their maintenance, since the date of passing of the order i.e 17.05.2019.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had prayed for monthly payment of Rs. 8,000/- to her and Rs. 7,000/- to her daughter towards their maintenance. However, learned Family Court has directed the Opposite Party No.2 to pay only Rs.6,000/- to the wife/petitioner and Rs. 4,000/- to her daughter towards their maintenance, despite the fact that as per the evidence on record, the petitioner and her daughter could have been awarded the maintenance as prayed for by them. Moreover, learned Family Court should have directed the payment of the maintenance from the date of the filing of the maintenance petition.

4. However, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 defend the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in it and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 also submits that the petitioner has the liability of his dependent father and mother.

5. I considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.

6. I find that the marriage between the petitioner/wife and the Opposite Party No.2 is not disputed and as per the record, the marriage between them was solemnized in the year 2010. It is also not disputed that one daughter was also born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and her husband/Suranjeet Kumar in the year 2012. I further find that as per the claim of the petitioner/wife, she along with her daughter is living at her maike on account of cruelty being committed by her husband on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and she has also filed a criminal case bearing Nalanda Mahila P.S. Case No. 25 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98A, 379, 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been further claimed that the husband of the petitioner is doing job in Petroleum Department, earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is further claimed that the husband has other sources of income like truck transport and agricultural land.

7. However, on notice, the husband appeared in the maintenance proceeding and contested the maintenance petition filed by his wife. He has admitted the marriage and not denied the birth of his daughter. He has also admitted that he is doing job in Petroleum Department. But he has denied that he has monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. However, he has not filed any documentary proof in support of his salary. He has also admitted that he has two trucks. However, he has denied that he has committed any cruelty against his wife.

8. After evidence and hearing of both the parties, learned Family Court has found that the petitioner is living in her maike along with her daughter with sufficient reason and monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 25,000/- besides having income from two trucks, and directed the husband to pay Rs.