1 S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.398/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.398/2008 Smt.Leela & Anr. Vs. Prema Ram & Anr. Date of Order : : 16/09/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Sanjay Mathur, for the petitioners. Mr.N.K.Joshi for Mr.S.D.Purohit for the respondent No.1 Mr.O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the order dated 29.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali (for short, “the Revisional Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No.35/2006, whereby the revisional court partly allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.1-Prema Ram against the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) and while maintaining the monthly allowance of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent No.1, modified the order of the trial court to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled for the 2 S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.398/2008 monthly allowance of maintenance from the date of order i.e. with effect from 18.7.2006 and not from the date of application as directed by the trial court. The trial court granted the monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the petitioners from the date of application i.e. with effect from 10.11.2003. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the courts below. From the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the revisional court has not assigned any reason for granting monthly allowance of mainteance from the date of order. The grant of monthly allowance of maintenance from the date of application is discretion vest with the trial court and without cogent reasons, the discretion exercised by the trial court has been interfered by the revisional court. Section 125 (2) provides that any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. The controversy involved in the instant petition has been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sau Suman Narayan Niphade & Anr. Vs. Narayan Sitaram Niphade & Anr., 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 243 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the question as to whether the monthly allowance of maintenance can be modified from the date of application or 3 S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.398/2008 order, held that the grant of enhancement of the maintenance whether should be allowed from the date of application, is the discretion of the court and if the court has exercised a discretion, it cannot be faulted in any manner. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the revisional court fell in error in modifying the order of the trial court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 29.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali to the extent granting monthly allowance of maintenance from the date of order of trial court is set aside and order of the trial court dated 18.7.2006 is restored. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK 4 S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.398/2008 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.STAY PETITION NO.920/2008 IN S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.398/2008 Date of Order : : 16/09/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Sanjay Mathur, for the petitioners. Mr.N.K.Joshi for Mr.S.D.Purohit for the respondent No.1 Mr.O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 Since the criminal revision petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK