IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.44 of 2008 Amit Kumar Sharma Son of Sri Nand Kishore Sharma, R/o vill. Barhi Tola, Tempo Road, Bhagalpur, Dist. Bhagalpur ---Petitioner/Opp.Party/Husband Versus Dharmshila Devi W/o Sri Amit Kumar Sharma, R/o vill. Barhi Tola, Tempo Road, Bhagalpur, presently residing at Daughter of Kundan Sharma, R/o vill. Rajabara, P.S. & P.O. Katoria, Dist. Banka -----Opp. Party/Wife. For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Mohan, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate. ----------- 03 13.08.2010 Petitioner is husband. He is challenging the order dated 07.12.2007, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in Misc. case no. 170 of 2004 (Dharmshila Devi vs. Amit Kumar Sharma). Opposite party herein filed the aforesaid proceeding seeking maintenance. It appears that prior to filing of the aforesaid case, the husband/petitioner herein had filed a suit seeking divorce from wife/opposite party herein on stated grounds that gave rise to a matrimonial suit no. 9 of 2003 of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur. By order dated 29.04.2005 (Annexure-1), learned Family Court, on a consideration of the materials placed before him passed an order directing the husband/petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) per month as maintenance pendente lite apart from a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) by way of litigation cost and arrears. It is admitted position that the petitioner/husband is paying the said amount. The parties in the present proceeding laid evidence. Learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the evidence brought on record both oral and documentary, has come to the 2 conclusion that the wife/opposite party herein is residing separately and she is not being maintained by the husband/petitioner. Although the husband/petitioner took a plea that she is self sufficient but the said stand of the petitioner/husband did not inspire confidence as in the matrimonial suit he had claimed divorce on diverse grounds including one that his wife is/was of unsound mind. Learned Magistrate has, thus, come to the conclusion that the wife/opposite party herein is entitled to maintenance. Accordingly it was directed that petitioner/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- (Fifteen hundred) per month to the wife/opposite party herein as maintenance w.e.f. the date of filing of the application. It is to be recorded herein that the said application was filed on 07.12.2004, whereas the final order was passed on 07.12.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails this part of the order. It is contended that normally the rule with respect to grant of maintenance is from the date of order, and order granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application is exception. It is contended that for giving such relief the Court has to assign reasons therefor. It is contended that those reasons are lacking. He relies on a judgment of this Court rendered in 2007(3) PLJR 723 (Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun Bhagwan Pathak vs. Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. paragraph no.4.) Elaborating further it is contended that the opposite party/ wife was already in receipt of certain amount which was being paid by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court 3 Bhagalpur. The Court was, therefore, under legal obligation to consider all these aspects of the matter. It is stated that the order impugned does not deal with these aspects of the matter and thereafter assign reason(s) for granting the aforesaid relief i.e. payment from the date of filing of the application. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Court below was required to assign reason for granting such maintenance w.e.f. from the date of filing of the application which is not in the order impugned. It further appears that opposite party herein had although filed an application seeking maintenance in 2004 but thereafter she continued to maintain herself inasmuch as she appeared in the suit filed by the petitioner/husband and contested the same whereafter learned Family Court directed the petitioner/husband to make payment of a sum of Rs. 500/ (Five hundred) per month as maintenance pendente lite which was being paid to her regularly. These facts were to be considered while granting the said relief to the wife/opposite party. Unfortunately, learned Magistrate has not considered those aspects of the matter and jumped onto the conclusion that the opposite party herein/wife was entitled to maintenance w.e.f. the date of filing of application. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to 4 interfere with the order. Accordingly, the order dated 07.12.2007, passed by learned Magistrate, Banka in Misc. case no. 170 of 2004, is modified to the effect that the husband/petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- ( Fifteen hundred) per month as maintenance to the opposite party/ wife w.e.f. the date of order dated 07.12.2007. Other part(s)/ condition(s) of the payment as indicated in the order impugned shall remain unaltered. With this modification in order impugned, the application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)