Maintenance should be paid from the date of filed application and not from the date of judgment – Jharkhand high court
Revision petition directed against the judgment in the maintenance Case No. 198 of 2014 questioning about the effective date of grant of maintenance whether it should be paid from the passing of judgment or the filing of the application was heard and disposed of by a single bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of rinki kumari versus Kundan Kumar(Cr. Rev. No. 577 of 2019)
The learned counsel, in this case, has relied upon the case of (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another) referring to para 113 of the judgment to prove that the law is well settled in the case of maintenance and it should be awarded from the filing of the application since the period during which maintenance proceeding remained pending. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the pursuant was to seek instructions as to whether the maintenance has been paid to the petitioner as per the impugned order or not, but the pursuant does not have any instructions.
After hearing both the parties the court finds that the lower court allowed the petition for maintenance on a contest, directed the opposite party to pay monthly maintenance from the date of passing of judgment along with litigation cost, and further directed the opposite party to make a payment of monthly allowance on or before 10th day of each month. The court considers the judgment relied upon the petitioner and in that view, it considers that directs payment of monthly maintenance from the date of judgment, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is accordingly modified by holding that the petitioner would be entitled to the payment of monthly allowance as fixed by the learned court below from the date of the application filed before the learned court below and with this The present criminal revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgment and aforesaid direction to the opposite party.
Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma