The court upheld the discretion of the appellate court in enhancing the interim maintenance amount and modified the date from which the enhanced amount was to be paid based on the circumstances of the case.

P.K. Lohra, J.

This revision petition is filed by petitioner to challenge order dated 18th of September, 2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court, while allowing the appeal of respondent-applicants under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of 2005'), enhanced the interim maintenance amount from Rs. 3,000/- awarded by Judicial Magistrate, Sojat District Pali (for short, learned trial Court') cumulatively to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-.

2. The facts, in brief, are that respondents filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 against petitioner. Along with the petition, an application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 is also laid for claiming interim maintenance. The learned trial Court, upon examining the said application, granted interim maintenance for both the respondents to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,500/- for each individual per mensem. Being aggrieved of the said order, respondents preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005. The learned appellate Court, upon examining the matter in its entirety, enhanced interim maintenance qua respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 1,500/- per month and vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 1,500/- per month. Cumulatively, learned appellate Court awarded the total interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per mensem.

3. The matter was examined at the threshold by a Coordinate Bench and vide order dated 7th of November, 2017, the Court passed interim order in following terms:-

"The effect and operation of the appellate court's order is stayed to the extent, the enhancement of maintenance was made effective from the date of filing of original application. However, the petitioner shall continue to make payment of current monthly enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondents."

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, in present era of inflation, the learned appellate Court has rightly exercised its discretion in enhancing the interim maintenance amount, and therefore, quantum of interim maintenance determined and awarded by learned appellate Court cannot be faulted, however from which date the interim maintenance is to be reckoned is a question which requires consideration.

6. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the enhanced amount is required to be paid to the respondents from the date of passing of order by the appellate Court and anterior to that date, i.e., the date of original application filed by respondents.

7. In view thereof, order impugned passed by learned appellate Court is modified and accordingly the instant revision petition is disposed of in terms of interim order granted by the Coordinate Bench by making it absolute.

8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall ensure compliance of the order of appellate Court without any demure in future and pay interim maintenance regularly till final decision of the petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005.