SBCR.REV.P.No.1096/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1096/2010. Latif Ahamad Vs. Smt.Najoon Nisha & Ors. Date of order : 2/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Sharma for petitioner. Shri Najeeb Anwar Khan for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:- The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 22/3/2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.499/2007 by which, application filed by the respondents U/S.12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been allowed and maintenance has been awarded to the respondents to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife, Rs.500/- each to children respondents No.3 and 4 and Rs.1,000/- to the children for their residential accommodation and thus, total Rs.4,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the respondents from the date of filing of the application i.e. 5/10/2007. He has also challenged the order dated 30/8/2010 passed by the appellate court by which, appeal filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. SBCR.REV.P.No.1096/10. 2 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he would confine his challenge to the validity of the impugned-order if the direction of the learned trial court to pay the amount of Rs.4,000/- is ordered to be paid from the date of passing of the order dated 22/3/2010 instead of filing of application i.e. 5/10/2007. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer citing judgments of this Court in Smt.Kanchan Sharma Vs. Prasana Sharma (SB Criminal Revision Petition No.1254/2007) decided on 25/3/2008 and Shabnam Bano Vs. Mohd.Rafiq & Ors. : 2010 (1) WLC 121. It was argued that the maintenance has rightly been allowed from the date of filing of the application i.e. 5/10/2007 and petitioner could have filed application praying for the same relief before the trial court itself rather than opposing the order of the trial court because application remained pending for the reason that petitioner did not adduce his evidence for quite some time. Learned counsel also argued that learned trial court had passed the order for grating interim-maintenance on 1/11/2007 i.e. soon after one month of the filing of the application. Learned counsel for petitioner has rejoined and submitted that order dated 1/11/2007 directing interim-maintenance was set-aside by the learned appellate court in the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 2/2/2008 by which, appeal filed by SBCR.REV.P.No.1096/10. 3 the respondents was also decided with direction to her to reside with the petitioner. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case that the order of interim-maintenance was passed and that order was set-aside by the appellate court with direction to the respondent-wife to reside with the petitioner and thereafter when respondent-wife went to live with the petitioner but still could not carry on their marital relations together, the court was constrained to pass the final order on 22/3/2010, I need not to go into detail looking to confinement of the limited prayer made by the petitioner. In the normal circumstances, order directing to make payment of maintenance from the date of filing of application may have been justified but here in the instant case, learned counsel for petitioner has given up his challenge to the impugned-orders and confined his prayer only to the extent of paying the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of passing of the order dated 22/3/2010 instead of 5/10/2007, I need not to go into detail examination of the argument. The impugned order dated 22/3/2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur is therefore modified and it is directed that interim-maintenance of Rs.4,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents from the date of passing of the order dated 22/3/2010 instead of date of filing of the application dated 5/10/2007 and shall regularly pay the same to them. However direction of SBCR.REV.P.No.1096/10. 4 the learned learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur that petitioner shall regularly pay to the respondent-wife amount of maintenance through SHO Jhotwara for being complied with, shall be maintained. In case, their failure to do so, necessary proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be taken at the instance of the respondents. With the abovesaid direction and modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCR.REV.P.No.1096/10. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1722/2010. in S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1096/2010. Latif Ahamad Vs. Smt.Najoon Nisha & Ors. Date of order : 2/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Sharma for applicant-petitioner. Shri Najeeb Anwar Khan for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:- Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil