IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 144 of 2004() ---------------------- MC.256/1992 of the FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- KOLODY SANTHA, D/O. VELUKUTTY, MAILAKKATTU POYIL, KANNANKARA AMSOM, ICHANGUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,ADVOCATE MR.K.B.SAJEESH,ADVOCATE MR.P.GOPINATH,ADVOCATE MR.C.S.SUNIL,ADVOCATE MR.P.R.SREEJITH,ADVOCATE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- M.P.PADMANABHAN, S/O. KELU VYDIAR, NURSING ASSISTANT, GOVT.GENERAL HOSPITAL (BEACH), KOZHIKODE (KOZHIKODE TOWN PSL). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(FC).NO.144 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.256/1992. The Family Court found that the 1st petitioner therein is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from 1.1.2004. Dissatisfied with the year on which it is granted, the wife has come up in revision. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition is filed as early as in 1992, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from that date and the court below erred in not granting the same from that date. A perusal of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code would reveal that such maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings, as the case may be. So, RP.(FC).144/04 2 under the first caption, the entitlement is from the date of order and in other cases, the court can order from the date of petition. So, ordinarily the rule is from the date of order and when the court in the exercise of its judicial discretion finds that it has to be given from the date of petition, there is no embargo or curtailment for the court to order so. Now a history of this case would reveal that the wife originally filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed by the first court and this Court in its judgment in M.F.A.No.557/1993 dated 31.8.2000 held that she is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. The question involved therein was regarding the marriage. It was by virtue of the order of this court, it was recognised that they are husband and wife. So, right from 1991, she has been knocking at the doors of the Court for justice and she had filed an application for maintenance as early as in 1992, and most probably, it is on account of the pendency of other case, an order has not been passed earlier. The very relationship has been disputed. The respondent had married another lady and he is residing together in a different place. The present petitioner has got RP.(FC).144/04 3 grown up children and now she is dependent on them. The amount awarded as maintenance is only Rs.300/-. It is for no fault of hers that the adjudication has been protracted. So, there exists exceptional circumstances to pass an order granting maintenance earlier than from the date of order, that is, the date of pronouncement of the judgment in the case. One can say that there was genuine and bona fide disputes between the parties with respect to the status of the parties till it was finally resolved and adjudication by this Court in the M.F.A. But when this Court adjudicates the question and declare the relationship of these persons as man and wife, the husband cannot shirk the responsibility of granting maintenance. Further that has not been considered at all by the Family court which has resulted in injustice to the petitioner. So, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the agony which this lady has to undergo almost for two decades, atleast an order of maintenance has to be granted from the date when this Court recognised them as husband and wife. That date is 31.8.2000. In the result, the R.P.(FC) is allowed affirming the amount of Rs.300/- but RP.(FC).144/04 4 modifying the date from 1.1.2004 to 31.8.2000 or in otherwords, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from 31.8.2000. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 6th November, 2008