IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 214 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.230/2004 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN MC: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJEENA, AGED 27 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPALLY, MULAVOOR, MUAVTTUPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMED FAIZ, AGED 4 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY IST PETITIONER MOTHER. 3. MUHAMMED FAYAZ, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER. BY ADV. MR.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.MUSTHAFA, NEDUMPILLIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPARA P.O. KUTTIYANCHAL KARA, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. MR.SUBAL J.PAUL THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.214 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.230/2004. The family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= to the wife and Rs.600/= each to the children from the date of filing of the MC. The grievance in the revision is that it should have been given to them from 20.8.2001 and there was a previous MC filed before the court. 2. It has to be remembered that during the pendency of the previous maintenance case, there was a mediation and the wife was taken to the matrimonial home but it did not survive long. According to the wife, the ill-treatment started again and she was forced to omit blood. The provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C only enables the court to grant maintenance either from the date of petition or from the date of order. The maintenance to be paid prior to the filing of the case is not contemplated under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Section 125(2) of the Cr.P.C makes it very clear that any such allowance for the maintenance or interim : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.214 OF 2005 maintenance and expenses of proceedings shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered from the date of application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings as the case may be. 3. So, if there is any past maintenance which is legally realisable, the parties have to move the appropriate court for the same in accordance with law. But as far as this case is concerned, the court has granted order of maintenance from the date of petition which is the maximum benefit that can be conferred under Section 125 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.214 OF 2005