>•'- 35# % 16.12.2010 Present:- Mr. Jawed Ahmad, Advocate with Mr. Pardeep Kumar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. U.L. Watwani, APP for state. Mr. I.J.S. Gulati, Advo for R-2. + Crl. M.C. No. 2636/2010 •k The petitioners filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi claiming maintenance from the respondent. Since respondent had disputed marriage as also the paternity of the children (petitioner Nos. 2 & 3), no interim maintenance was granted to the petitioners. After a full-fledged trial. Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 6.11.2009 had ordered that the respondent shall pay maintenance @ ?2000/- per month to the petitioner No.l and ?1000/- per month each to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition. The respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2009 before the Additional Sessions Judge which has been disposed of by the order dated 13.07.2009 impugned by way of present petition. While upholding the order of maintenance passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge has Signing Date:05.08.2024 16:58:50 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ordered that the petitioners shall be entitled to maintenance from the date of order i.e. 6.11.2009 and not from the date of filing of the petition. Learned ASJ was of the view that disposal of the petition was delayed at the instance of petitioners, thus, they were not entitled to maintenance from the date of petition. Aggrieved by this order of the ASJ, the petitioners have preferred this petition U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that the view taken by the ASJ in awarding maintenance from the date of order was erroneous, inasmuch as petitioners had not intentionally dragged on the case before the M.M. It is contended that since respondent had challenged the marriage as also the paternity it took time in leading cogent evidence in this regard, inasmuch as petitioners had no funds at their disposal to pursue the legal remedies. I have perused the trial court record and I do not find the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge to be correct. It is not reflected from the proceeding sheets that the petitioners had intentionally dragged on disposal of the case. On few occasions adjournment had been taken by the respondent; on some occasion presiding officer was on leave. Indeed, the petitioners took time in leading evidence but at the same time it cannot be said to be intentional. Since paternity was challenged, an application for DNA test of the children and of respondent was filed, which itself remained pending for about two years. As a matter of general rule, maintenance has to be awarded from the date of petition. Petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the time taken in disposal of a case. In this case petitioners were even deprived of interim maintenance since respondent had not only challenged the marriage but also the paternity. In Vinod Kumar Jolly Vs. Sunita Jolly & Anr. 2007 (97) DRJ 205 (DB) this court has held that normally rule is that the maintenance is to be allowed from the date of filing of the petition and if this rule is to be deviated, there has to be special reasons for adopting such course. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that Additional Sessions Judge was not right in directing the payment of maintenance from the date of the order. Impugned order is set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. DECEMBER 16, 2010 pkv A.K. PATHAK, J. O