1 Criminal Writ Petition No.244 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.244 OF 2003 Nanda Haribhau Mhase, Age-41 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Shendi, Tal.Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Haribhau Rabhaji Mhase, Age-50 years, Occu-Business and agriculturist, R/o.4891, Deokar Galli, Maliwada, Ahmednagar 2. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.P.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.B.S.Shinde h/f. Mr.V.P.Latange, learned counsel for respondent no.1 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This criminal writ petition is directed against the judgment and 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.244 of 2003 order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Rev.No.257/2002 decided on 03/03/2003, by which the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-3, Ahmednagar was set aside in the revisional jurisdiction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner followed by the submissions of learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. 4. Undisputed facts, which gave rise to this writ petition can be summarized as : The petitioner had filed criminal Misc.Appl.No.343/1999 for enhancement of maintenance amount. In the said application, the petitioner has given particulars about the source of income of the respondent no.1 herein. In support of her contention, she had produced voluminous record, but respondent no.1 has denied all the averments made in the application. Accordingly, the application moved by the petitioner herein was allowed by the learned J.M.F.C. Ahmednagar. It appears that the order passed in Cri.M.A.No. 343/1999 was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cri.Rev.No.257/2002. It is undisputed that originally the petitioner had filed an application for maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. which was decided on 01/09/1989, and numbered as Cri.Appl.No.103/1988. Learned Trial Court had ordered monthly 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.244 of 2003 maintenance @ 300/- in favour of the petitioner herein. After the span of about 10 years, considering the rising prices of all the essential commodities, application for enhancement of maintenance amount was preferred which was numbered as Cri.M.A.No.343/1999. In the revision application, even though the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar had confirmed the order in respect of enhancement of maintenance, but modified the order that the application to be allowed from the date of order and not from the date of application, which is impugned before this Court. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is useful to advert to the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Shailkumari Devi versus Kisan, 2009 (Suppl.) Bombay Cases Reporter, 324, which reads as, The Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case observed that the maintenance under section 125 of the Code can be awarded from the date of application and that for doing so, no special reasons are required to be recorded by the Court. The Supreme Court of India observed as follows : “Maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife.” (Para 46 of the reported judgment) 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.244 of 2003 The impugned order, to the extent it made the amount of maintenance payable from the date of closure of evidence, is not in accordance with Law. It is inconsistent with the well settled and consistent practice followed by superior Courts, which has almost crystallized into a rule of Law. The Magistrate herself concluded that both the parties were responsible for the delay in disposal of the application and, therefore, there was no special reason for making the amount of maintenance payable not from the date of application. Even though the observations of the Apex Court are in relation with the application u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C., it will be squarely applicable to the application for enhancement of the maintenance amount u/s. 127 of the Cr.P.C. as the maintenance to the wives and the persons those who are unable to maintain themselves, is a social legislature and this rule will be squarely applicable in all the cases. In last paragraph, the Revisional Court has observed that to grant the application from the date of application, learned Trial Court required to record the special reasons, as according to him, to allow the application from the date of application is an exception, while to allow the application from the date of order is a rule. These observations of the learned Revisional Court are against the settled principle of Law. Considering this aspect, the order passed by the Revisional Court in Cri.Rev.No.257/2002 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. Writ petition stands 5 Criminal Writ Petition No.244 of 2003 allowed in terms of prayer clause II and III and stands disposed of. 6. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.w.p.244-03