1 wp2648.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2648 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.M. Kagne, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Heard. Advocate Mr. Kagne states that the petitioner-husband is not disputing the quantum of maintenance. But grievance is about the date from which it is awarded. Proceedings for divorce under Section 12(1)(b)(d) r/w Section 5(b) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are instituted by the petitioner-husband in 2009 and in those proceedings, the respondent-wife appeared, filed her written statement on 07.01.2010 but did not claim any interim maintenance. Application claiming that maintenance has been filed for the first time on 11.01.2011 and in that application, no specific date from which maintenance is claimed has been specified. Inspite of this trial Court has granted relief from the date of filing of Petition by husband i.e. from 12.08.2009. He states that this direction is also very vague because the 2 wp2648.11 impugned order uses the word "filing of this Petition" which according to learned Counsel referred to proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He is relying upon the observations of learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in judgment reported at "1990 Law Suit (M.P.) 103" ( Indira Gagele V/s Shailendra Gagele). 2. Perusal of reported judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reveals that there in paragraph no.9 it has been held that if for some reason spouce claiming decree in his or her favour could not move application along with the suit, he/she may file application subsequently claiming maintenance pendente lite from the date of institution of suit and the Court in its discretion may grant maintenance pendente lite payable from date of institution of the suit. It is further observed that the respondent in the matter however can not enjoy the same benefit. Learned Single Judge has clarified that the Court can in exercise of judicial discretion grant such interim maintenance to respondent from the date of his/her first appearance in the suit, if the prayer is made specifically to that effect in the application or then from the date of application. 3. In present matter, written statement has been filed on 7th January, 2010 and thereafter on 11.01.2011, the application under Section 24 came to be filed contending 3 wp2648.11 that from the date of institution of proceedings husband has neglected the wife and she is therefore not in position to survive. Hence, she has demanded interim maintenance for Rs. 3000/- for herself and Rs. 2000/- for children. Though in prayer specifically no date is mentioned, from pleadings it is apparent that refusal to maintain from the date of institution of proceedings has been pointed out. 4. Impugned order in this back ground has directed maintenance to be paid from 12.08.2009. The earlier words i.e. "filing of this Petition" are not very relevant and decisive in view of the specific mention of date here. The said date is the date of filing of proceedings i.e. main proceedings by the present petitioner. The selection of date is obviously because of grievance of neglect right from beginning made by the respondent and her children. 5. Interim maintenance awarded is Rs. 750/- per month. In these facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the Petition. The judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court does not lay down law applicable in the present facts. The present Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2648.11