R.N.BISWAL, J. CRLREV NO. 18 OF 2010 (Decided on 07.12.2011) PASHUPATI ACHARYA ..……..Petitioner. .Vrs. DIPALI ACHARYA ……….Opp.Party. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) – S.125 (2). For Petitioner - M/s. S.K.Mishra, K.R.Mohanty, J.Pradhan, P.Prusty. For Opp.Party - M/s. D.Nayak, N.K.Mohanty R.N.BISWAL,J. The petitioner assails the judgment dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Soro in Misc. case No.109 of 2007 awarding monthly allowance of Rs.2000/- towards maintenance of the opp.party from the date of filing of the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. i.e., 8.10.2007. 2. The case of the opp.party, as per her petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the court below in nub, is that she married the petitioner on 3.7.1993 as per their caste custom and Hindu rites. At the time of her marriage a sum of Rs.5000/- and gold and silver ornaments as per demand of the petitioner and his family members were given to the petitioner towards dowry. The couple led a happy conjugal life for a short period and thereafter skirmishes errupted between them as the demand of petitioner and his family members for further sum of Rs.10,000/- and a colour T.V. towards dowry could not be complied with. The petitioner tortured the opp.party in many a way. The opp.party bore all the tortures with the hope that good sense would prevail upon the petitioner by passage of time. In the meantime, opp. party gave birth to two female children, but still then the torture continued unabated. In one occasion, the petitioner poured kerosene over opp.party to kill her, but some how she could be escaped. She was not provided with food and medicine for which she was compelled to work in bakery for sustenance of her life and the life of her two children. But still then the lust of the petitioner for money and colour T.V was not quenched, and he removed her from his house and since then she has been residing in her parental house. 3. It is the further case of the opp.party that petitioner works in Rourkela Steel Plant and earns Rs.6000/- per month besides having 10 acres of home stead and agricultural land in village Bishnupur, where from he earns Rs.50,000/- per annum, whereas she is unable to maintain herself. So the opp.party in her petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claimed Rs.2000/- per month as allowance towards her maintenance from the petitioner. 4. The petitioner admitted the fact of marriage between himself and the opp.party, but denied the allegation of demand of dowry and torture on the opp.party. As per his case, opp.party voluntarily deserted him due to his poverty. Furthermore, it was alleged that she had extramarital relationship with one Sudadrsan Jena. According to the petitioner, he is not working in Rourkela Steel Plant. So the question of earning Rs.6000/- per month is a myth. He has also no any agricultural land. In fact, he is coaching some students and out of it he earns only Rs.1800/- as tuition fees per month. So, he is not liable to pay any allowance towards maintenance of the petitioner. 5. To establish her case, opp.party examined four witnesses including herself as P.W.1 before the trial court. On a petition of opp.party for interim maintenance, a sum of Rs.300/- per month was awarded to be paid by petitioner from 5.11.2008. Since he did not pay the same, his defence was struck out by the trial court relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Govinda Sahoo vs. Pratima Muduli 2005 (31) OLR-79. 6. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial court held that opp. party could not prove that the petitioner used to work at Rourkela Steel Plant and earn Rs.6000/- per month. She also failed to establish that petitioner owns 10 acres of homestead and cultivable land. But it held that he is an able bodied man and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance allowance in favour of the opp. party to be paid by the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2009. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below erred in not allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence, particularly on 10.9.2009 when he was ready to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards arrear interim maintenance. A sum of Rs.3000/- was allowed as interim maintenance vide order dated 5.11.2008. The petitioner did not pay that amount. As it appears from the order sheet dated 10.9.2009 he was ready to pay a sum of Rs.500/- only towards arrear interim maintenance, but by that time it had already mounted to more than Rs.2700/-. So, striking out the defence of the petitioner by the trial court and not allowing him to adduce evidence is not illegal in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact petitioner has no avocation. He has two daughters, besides the parents who are not able to maintain themselves. So he has to maintain them also. Under such circumstances, trial court ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- as monthly allowance towards maintenance. Even if the petitioner is unemployed it is his legal and moral duty to maintain the opp.party-his legally married wife, besides maintaining his minor children. As it appears opp. party tried her best not to leave the matrimonial home. She even worked in a bakery to maintain herself and her children. But, still then, the petitioner tortured her both physically and mentally for non-fulfillment of his demand of Rs.10000/- and a colour T.V. When she could not bear the torture any further, she left the matrimonial home. So, it cannot be said that she left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason. Now in the present day market when the price of essential commodities has become very costly, an award of Rs.1000/- per month towards maintenance allowance cannot be said to be exorbitant. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per sub-section (2)of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the maintenance allowance is payable from the date of order, but in the present case, it has been ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. i.e., 8.10.2007 which is wrong. In normal course the monthly maintenance award is payable from the date of order. In special cases order 2 can be passed to pay it from the date of filing of the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, no reason has been assigned as to why the award would be payable from the date of application. So the order directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. i.e. 8.10.2007 instead of the date of order deserves to be set aside. 10. Accordingly the revision is allowed in part. In stead of paying the maintenance allowance of Rs.1000/- from 8.10.2007, the petitioner shall pay it from the date of order i.e.29.10.2009. The order of the court below is set aside to this extent only while the remaining part of it remains unaltered. Revision allowed. 3