1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 7/2011 Prajakta Prashant Ubhad and another Versus Prashant Nilkanth Ubhad ..................................................................................................................................................... Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ..................................................................................................................................................... Mr. B. D. Chute, counsel for applicant Mr. R. S. Suryawanshi, for respondent Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 29th June 2011 1. Heard submissions at the bar. 2. The revision applicant is questioning legality and propriety of the order dated 30/10/2010; passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Akola in petition no. E-200/2009, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Akola, granted maintenance to the applicants from the date of the order with effect from 30/10/2010. Learned Judge of the Family Court ordered the lump sum amount in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- only 2 from the date of application i.e. 27/04/2009 till 30/10/2010. Learned advocate for the revision applicant submitted that this portion of the order which deprived the applicant from the amount of maintenance to which they were entitled from the date of application; is not sustainable in the eye of law as it is normal rule that maintenance is to be granted from the date of application unless there is justification for the trial Court to deny claim by the applicant from the date of application. Learned advocate for the revision applicant made reference to Akbar Khan, Anwar Khan V/s. Rukhaiya Khatoon, Abdul Razzaque, cited in 1996-EQ(BOM)-0-74030, Bombay High Court considered the normal rule that maintenance is to be granted from the date of the order. It is only in the exceptional cases and for valid reasons the trial Judge may grant maintenance from the subsequent date. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent is in service as Accountant in the bank earning salary of Rs. 15,000/- or about, which is not disputed by the learned advocate for the respondent. Considering 3 these circumstances, there appears no sound reason in the impugned order to deny the revision applicants the award of maintenance from the date of application i.e. with effect from 27/04/2009. 4. Learned advocate for the respondent pointed out ruling in the case of Sau Suman Narayan Niphade and another v/s. Narayan Sitaram Niphade and another reported in 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 243, in order to submit that the trial Judge can grant maintenance from the date of the order on the application. The ruling is as regards to enhanced amount of maintenance awarded with reference to Section 127 of Cr.P.C. If the amount is increased than already awarded earlier then it would be discretion to be exercised by the Court enhancing the maintenance amount to grant it either from the date of order or from the date of the application with backdated effect. The ruling (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable as it is in respect of different facts and circumstances and would not be attracted. 4 5. In my opinion, the learned Judge while passing an order of maintenance with reference to an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ought to have considered the facts and circumstances as to whether the applicants are entitled to get maintenance from the date of application. In the present case, no exceptional circumstances have been pointed out in the impugned judgment so as to deprive the applicants of the award of maintenance from the date of application. Normally applicants are entitled to claim maintenance from the date of application. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires modification regarding amount of maintenance awarded to the applicants i.e. with effect from 27/04/2009. The award of lump-sum of Rs. 10,000/- is therefore set aside. Instead, the respondent shall be liable to pay maintenance to the applicants per month as awarded, but with effect from the date of application. 6. This Criminal Revision is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde