Maintenance in proceedings under section 488 Cr.P.C. should be awarded from the date of application for maintenance, as directed by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 15.12.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla (hereinafter for short "Revisional Court") as also order dated 10.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tangmarg (hereafter for short "the trial Magistrate"). Vide order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the trial Magistrate, the petitioners in a proceeding under section 488 Cr.P.C. have been granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- (Rs.2,500/- each) from the date of passing of the said order. The aforesaid order has been upheld by learned Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017 in a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial Magistrate.

2. It appears that the petitioners who happen to be the wife and children of the respondent had moved the trial Magistrate seeking maintenance from the respondent. The said petition was allowed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 10.07.2015, thereby granting maintenance of Rs.7,500/- (Rs.2,500/- each) to the petitioners from the date of passing of the order. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge Baramulla presumably on the grounds that the amount granted by the trial Magistrate is on lower side and that instead of the same having been made payable from the date of filing of the application, it has been made payable from the date of the order.

3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge Baramulla vide his order dated 17.09.2015, while upholding the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial Magistrate, modified the said order to the extent that the maintenance was made payable from the date of filing of the application.

4. It seems that the aforesaid order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge came to be challenged by the respondents herein before this Court by filing a petition under section 561-A of J&K Cr.P.C. The said petition came to be allowed vide order dated 03.05.2017 and the order of learned Principal Sessions Judge Baramulla was set aside. A further direction was extended by this Court whereby the case was remanded to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla with a direction to decide the revision petition afresh within a period of three months. In these circumstances, the revision petition again landed in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla. Vide the impugned order passed by the said Court the order of the trial Magistrate was upheld and the maintenance was made payable from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.

5. The impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the order of maintenance is always to be awarded from the date of the application and not from the date of the order. It is further contended that no reasons have been assigned by the trial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court in their impugned orders as to why the maintenance is being awarded in favour of the petitioners from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of the application.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. A perusal of the order impugned passed by the trial Magistrate reveals that he has not assigned any reason as to why maintenance awarded by him in favour of the petitioners has been made payable from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. The learned revisional Court in the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 has observed that the wife is not shown to have been rendered impoverished or subjected to such condition that required her to have raised loans for her sustenance. It has been further observed that the wife has been shown to be working as ASHA worker prior to the application filed by her. On these grounds the learned Revisional Court has come to a conclusion that there were no sufficient circumstances for saddling the respondent with liability t