The main legal point established is the entitlement to maintenance from the date of application, as directed by the Supreme Court, and the need for uniformity in maintenance orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. These are two Criminal Revisions against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, by which Criminal Misc. Case No.760 of 2004, Smt. Poonam Devi vs. Narendra Kumar, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Poonam Devi (wife/revisionist) has been allowed.

2. Smt. Poonam Devi has filed the Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 inter alia praying for enhancement of the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 2.8.2004 and has also prayed for awarding the cost of Rs.15,000/- lump sum, whereas Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012 has been filed by Shri Narendra Kumar, who is the husband of Smt. Poonam Devi, praying for setting aside the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 760 of 2004.

3. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of the common factual matrix and law as well as the common judgment, therefore, these two criminal revisions are being decided by the common judgment and order.

4. Heard Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel, who has put in appearance for the husband Narendra Kumar in Criminal Revision No.176 of 2012 and Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, who has appeared for Smt. Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012.

5. Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist Smt. Poonam Devi in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012 has submitted that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/claimant Smt. Poonam Devi remained pending since 2.8.2004 and thus eight years were taken for deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is summary proceeding and therefore, she is entitled for the maintenance allowance to be given from the date of the filing of the application under Section 125 i.e. 2.8.2004.

6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/claimant/Poonam Devi has further submitted that at least 1/3rd of the amount of the income of the husband ought to have been awarded in her favour. He submits that as less than 1/3rd amount has been awarded by means of the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, therefore, the amount awarded in favour of the claimant/revisionist is liable to be enhanced.

7. Refuting the aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the revisionist/claimant/Poonam Devi, Shri Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar has submitted that there was no reason for the trial court to award the maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application. The order impugned is ambiguous as learned trial court has wrongly interpreted the statement of the opposite party 2 i.e. Smt. Poonam Devi recorded before this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 284 of 2004 : Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. Ram Narain. He submits that the trial court has erroneously drawn adverse conclusion against the revisionist/husband/Narendra Kumar for filing a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Unnao ignoring the fact that respondent no.2/wife/Poonam Devi is permanent resident of Unnao.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that Smt. Poonam Devi (revisionist/wife) was married with the Narendra Kumar (revisionist/husband) on 28.4.2002. The dispute arose between the parties after six months of their marriage. The revisionist/Poonam Devi was living separately away from her husband (revisionist/Narendra Kumar) for justified reasons as her father had died and her in-laws were forcing her to sell her ancestral land so that Maruti Car be purchased. From the evidence led before the trial court it has come on record that the Revisionist/Poonam Devi was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for demand of dowry.

9. It transpires from the impugned order that learned trial Court, while deciding the case, has framed three issues i.e. (i) whether the husband