^^ •^v ^•^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No. 203 OF 2007 Siat. Sai'oj Devi W/o Satish Kuiaar Sharma, aged about 35 years, R/o Pendra Road, P.S. Gaurela, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDBNT Satish Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Brijendra Sharma, aged 40 years, R/o Behiiid Police Station Lormi, P.S. Lonni, Distt, Bilaspur(C.G.).. APPLICATION UNDBR SECTION 482 OF CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURE. (SB :Hoa?ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ritu Mishra, Advocate For the applicant/petitioner. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For the respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed oa 10/8/2009) This petition is under Section 482 of tlie Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (ia short fhe Code) for inodi&cation of fhe order dated 9/4/07 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (P.T.C.), Pendra Road ia crhniaal revision No, 303/06 whereby leanied Additioaal Sessions Judge, has enhanced fhe amouut of maiatenaiice awarded ia M.J.C. N0. 100/06 order dated 17/8/06 from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,500/- but has not awarded the mamtenaace on tiie date offUmg oftlie appUcation ie. 9/5/2000, The order is challeuged on fhe ground that bofh. fhe courts below has not recorded aay findiag for non awardiag of the inauitenaiice froni fhe date of fiUng of tiie appUcation and fhereby conunitted aii iUegatity causin.g serious prejudice to fhe petitioner. / "-^.^ -^- \\ 3. Vide order dated 17/8/06 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road has awarded raaiiitenaiice of Rs. 500/- per m.ontli t.o the petitioner from fhe date of order i.e. 17/8/06 which has been enhaaced by the order impugned but Additional Sessions Judge has not considered fhe ground of fhe petitioner for such enhancenient froia tihie date of filiag of tiie original application. 4, Leaned counsel for fhe parties are heard. 5. Order iinpugned aad records ofcourts below perused. 6. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner submits tiiat leamed revisional court has not considered his one ground aad has not recorded aay fiaduig relatmg to such ground has not awardiag inamtenaace frora the date of filhig of the appUcation. 7. On fhe ofher hand, leamed counsel for fhe respondent subinits that order of raaintenance froni fhe date of order is a normal nile aad awarduig of niamtenaace from th.e date of appUcation is aa exception. Bofh fhe courts below has righUy awarded the uiain.tenaiice froni fhe date of order in a exparte proceediag where respondent is not contested the case, 8. Accordiag to fhe Section 125 of fhe Code Court is required to award fhe niaiiiteuaace on fhe date of order but after recorduig the reason court may awai-d the maintenaace froia the date of filing of ftie appUcatiou. In a exparte proceedhig. Learaed Judicial Magistrate First Class has awarded ftie maintenaiice of Rs. 500/- but revisional court has enhanced aad awai'ded Rs. 1,500/- three tmies of ftie origio.al award, Revisonal Court has not given any findmg relating to the non awarding of the maiatenaace from fhe date of appUcation, The revisional court has opted fhe normal rule /y^ ^ 1 •—--IJ ^. ->.€'' J- ^ + but substantially enhaaced the amount of m.aiD.tenaace considermg the substmitial enhancenient, I do not find aay illegatity or iafirmity on tlie ground fhat it has not been awarded froia fhe date of filmg of fhe appUcation. ConsequenUy, fhis petition is Uable to be disniissed aad it is hereby disinissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge