Maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing the application to prevent financial hardship, as established in prior case law.

ORAL ORDER

1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned applications are interrelated and the challenge is also to a selfsame judgment and order passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamkhambhaliya (District: Jamnagar), those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The prayer as sought for in Criminal Misc. Application No.5027 of 2015 is to quash and set aside the two order dated 06.08.2015 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.24 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the respondent-wife came to be allowed and the amount of maintenance awarded vide order dated 21.07.2014 has been enhanced from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 7500/- as also the order of an even date, dated 06.08.2015 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.02 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the applicant-husband, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21.07.2014 has been rejected.

3. The prayer as sought for in Criminal Misc. Application No.6002 of 2015 is to quash the very same order dated 06.08.2015 as being unjust, improper, arbitrary and on a lower side so far as the quantum of maintenance awarded is concerned. In short, the said application has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh appearing for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.6002 of 2015 submits that the applicant and the respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife. However, due to some matrimonial disputes having been cropped up between them, they decided to live separately. As usual, thereafter, litigations were queued and the wife had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambalia, after appreciating the evidence available on record, passed an order on 21.07.2014 whereby the application filed by the wife was partly allowed and the amount of Rs.2500/- was awarded as the monthly maintenance. Being aggrieved, the wife had preferred revision application before the Sessions Court, which was partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs.7500/- from the date of passing of the order dated 21.07.2014 and not from the date of filing of the application. Learned advocate Mr. Rachh also submits that the present application is of the year 2015 and the impugned order was passed in the year 2014 and now ten years have been lapsed and, therefore, he has urged to slightly modify the order of maintenance so far as the period of calculation is concerned. The court below has erred in awarding the amount of maintenance from the date of passing of the order which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has crystalized the position of law that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing of the application for maintenance, more particularly from Paragraph-94 onwards. If that be done, then he is not pressing the other reliefs at this juncture without touching the merits of the matter with a liberty to file appropriate application before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

5. Learned advocate Mr. P.M. Lakhani appearing for the applicant in the Criminal Misc. Application No.5027 of 2015 filed for reduction of the amount of maintenance submits that as number of years have been passed during the pendency of the present application, at the outset, without touching the merits of the matter, he would also like to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, seeking appropriate relief. However, he has raised a preliminary objection to the arguments canvassed by the learned advocate Mr. Rachh that the amount of maintenance should be from the date of filing of the maintenance application. The learned trial judge has rightly passed the i