The revisional court must provide reasons for altering the effective date of maintenance orders under S.125 of the Cr.P.C.

1. The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision under S.397 read with S.401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda, District - Ujjain in Revision Case No. 57/2017, thereby partly allowed the revision preferred by the non - applicant / respondent and has modified the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Nagda, District - Ujjain in M.J.C.No.61/2014.

2. The petitioner / wife has preferred an application under S.125 of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent / husband before the JMFC, Nagda, Ujjain for grant of maintenance for herself and her minor children. Along with the said application, the petitioner has also filed an application for grant of ad - interim maintenance for herself and her minor children. After service of notice, the respondent / husband appeared before the learned trial Court and almost took two years for filing the reply. On 11.1.2017, the petitioner / wife also submitted a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the respondent / husband in the reply. According to the respondent, the petitioner / wife is not entitled for any kind of maintenance under S.125 the Cr.P.C., as she has been given divorce by the respondent / husband. The trial Court thereafter, vide order dated 17.1.2017, partly allowed the application for grant of ad - interim maintenance and awarded Rs.1000/- and Rs.1,500/- per month each for the minor children from the date of filing of the application. The order passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the respondent / husband by filing a revision under S.397 of the Cr.P.C. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda, District - Ujjain. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain vide order dated 10.10.2017 partly allowed the revision preferred by the respondent and the order dated 17.1.2017 was modified to the effect that, it shall be came into force from the date of passing of the order and not for the date of filing of the application. Being aggrieved with that part of the order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in modifying the order passed by the trial Court, therefore, awarding the maintenance from the date of passing of the order. He submits that, from perusal of the documents available on record, it is clear that the respondent / husband himself has avoided to file reply to the application for grant of ad - interim maintenance in the matter for almost 2 years and he adopted every of his possible effort to prolong the proceedings of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the date of application and the modification of the order is unwarranted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while modifying the order, has not assigned any reason. The lower Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Krishna w/o Dharam Raj Jain vs. Dharam Raj : reported in 1991 M.P.L.J. 451, Saroj Bai vs. Jaik Kumar Jain reported in 1994 M.P.L.J.928, Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas : reported in 2015 (2) SCC 385 and Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & others: reported in 2015 (6) SCC 353 .

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the Court below and submits that the Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. The trial Court has failed to assign an