HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4450 of 2009 Date: October 01, 2010 Between: N.J. Kishore Kumar … Petitioner/ Respondent And 1. K. Rajani Florence & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4450 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Technician (Grade-I), Loco Shed, South Central Railway, Vijayawada. He is husband of the first respondent. There is no dispute about their marriage. There is also no dispute about the first respondent living separately from the petitioner since some time prior to filing of the present petition for interim maintenance in the lower court. Admittedly, the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. They have two sons who are residing with the petitioner. It is stated that one son is in second year B.Tech., and another son is doing polytechnic course. It is also stated that the petitioner has got his mother. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that before granting interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the first respondent from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the lower court should have considered expenditure of the petitioner’s family and also income of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is working as teacher in Kuchipudi on salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and that the first respondent’s father deposited Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of the first respondent from which she is getting interest of Rs.2,000/- per month. For the above alleged income of the first respondent, the petitioner could not produce any proof before the lower court. After all, what was granted towards interim maintenance to the first respondent is 10% of admitted salary of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower court should have granted interim maintenance from the date of the order and that the lower court erred in granting interim maintenance from the date of application. Having regard to the language employed in Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. the Supreme Court on this aspect in Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak[1] observed as follows: “We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect.” 4. Thus, reasons are required for granting maintenance or interim maintenance. No special reasons are required for granting maintenance or interim maintenance from the date of application instead of from the date of order. In case a court intended to grant maintenance or interim maintenance from the date of application, the only condition is that the court should specifically order so. Thus, order of the lower court does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: October 01, 2010 BSB [1] (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 839