The petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the original application date, modifying the Family Court's prior decision.

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

31.03.2023 in M.C. No. 314/2015 of the Family Court, Kozhikode. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, this Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Family Court ought to have allowed the maintenance as claimed in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C . The counsel also submitted that the Family Court granted maintenance only from 03.04.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that, originally the case was filed before the Family Court, Kalpetta and the case was transferred to the Family Court, Kozhikode and a new number was given. The case was originally filed before the Family Court, Kalpetta on 31.03.2014. The Family Court ought to have granted maintenance from the date of original application. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. The counsel submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment.

4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. The Family Court considered the matter in detail and thereafter fixed the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month. It will be better to extract paragraph No.54 of the impugned judgment:

“54. Admittedly the petitioner is a practicing lawyer. It has come out in evidence that petitioner is having joint property. But there is nothing in evidence to conclude that petitioner is receiving income from the same. No doubt the petitioner is conducting cases in various court of Malappuram District. Petitioner herself very beautifully conducted these cases. But at the same time it is not possible to conclude that she is getting sufficient income from her profession. Admittedly the first respondent is the Manager of Gokulam Chits and Finance and according to him he is getting the salary of Rs.33,000/- per month. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent is getting amount from share trading business and from real estate business. But there is no evidence to conclude that first respondent is getting income from share trading business and real estate business as alleged by her. It is contended by first respondent that he has to look after his aged mother who is suffering from many kind of ailments. Admittedly the mother is getting family pension of Rs.22,000/- and other two siblings are there for the first respondent. No document has been produced by RW1 to prove that he has spent amount for the treatment of R2. First respondent being the husband is bound to provide maintenance to the petitioner. It is due to difference of opinion and issues between the parties they are residing separately. RW1 has no case that he is providing maintenance to PW1. Considering the income of the respondent, cost of living, rate of inflation first respondent can be directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards the past maintenance of the petitioner for the period from 20.12.2011 to 20.12.2014 (36x3000=Rs.1,08,000/-). The respondent can be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of MC

314/2015 ie., 03.04.2015.”

5. I see no reason to interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Family Court considered all the contentions of the petitioner and thereafter fixed the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month considering the fact that the petitioner is a lawyer. But, I make it clear that, if there is any change of circumstances after the impugned order, the petitioner can file an appropriate application under Section

127 Cr.P.C ./146 BNSS.

6. The second point raised by the petitioner is that the maintenance is awarded only from 03.04.2015 and the c