Maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be awarded from the date of application, not the date of order, ensuring fair support for the spouse.

ORDER

By this common order criminal revision No.6325/2024 filed by husband shall also be decided.

2. Both criminal revisions have been filed against order dated 24/08/2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior in MJCR No.20155/2019 by which the wife (applicant in criminal revision No.4888/2024) has been granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of order.

3. Criminal Revision No.4888/2024 has been filed by wife Smt. Pragati Rashinkar (Dixit) for enhancement of maintenance amount whereas criminal revision No.6325/2024 has been filed by the husband Rohan Dixit for setting aside the order of maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month.

Criminal Revision No.4888/2024:-

4. Seeking enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded by impugned order, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that Court below has committed a material illegality by awarding the monthly maintenance from the date of order. In fact, in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh V/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 maintenance amount should have been awarded from the date of filing of application.

5. It is further submitted that respondent/husband has deliberately not filed pay-slip whereas he is working as Assistant Engineer in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board. By referring to orders dated 10/07/2024 and 25/07/2024, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that when respondent/husband was directed to file his pay-slip, then he did not do the same and expressed that his department has not given the pay- slip and accordingly, by order dated 25/07/2024, it was observed by Trial Court that since, respondent/husband is not interested in filing his pay- slip, therefore, an adverse reference will be drawn. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that as per Service Rules, respondent/husband is working on the post of Assistant Engineer and the pay-scale is Rs.56,100- 1,44,300/-. The applicant has also filed a copy of information received from Income Tax Department, according to which, the gross income of respondent/husband for the year 2022-2023 was Rs.12,35,123/-.

6. Furthermore, even according to affidavit filed by respondent/husband, he had admitted that his monthly income is 82,872/- However, under the head of liabilities, it was further claimed by respondent/husband that he is making a payment of EMI of Rs.13,600/- towards repayment of loan of Rs.6,20,000/- which he had taken from SBI. It is submitted that once a person has taken loan from the bank, then it is clear that he has already received the amount in advance and, therefore, EMI which is being paid by husband towards repayment of loan cannot be a statutory deduction. The voluntarily deductions cannot be considered for calculating the take home salary. It is further submitted that by order dated 22/10/2019 the matter was sent for reconciliation and as per the report of councillor, the reconciliation had failed and respondent/husband had admitted that he would return the educational certificates of applicant but later on when an application under Section 91 of C.P.C. was filed, then a submission was made by respondent/husband that he is not in possession of the documents and accordingly, by order dated 26/04/2023, application was rejected by Trial Court by observing that applicant can obtain duplicate copies of the certificates. It is submitted that on account of withholding of her educational certificates by respondent/husband, applicant is not also in a position to do any job and for the last five years she is sitting idle without any source of income and any job.

Criminal Revision No.6325/2024:-

7. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent/wife is an educated girl and while she was residing in Chhattisgarh alongwith applicant, she was working as a part-time Lecturer. It is further submitted that respondent/wife has deserted applicant without any reasonable reason and, therefore, she is n