Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Deepabao Vs. Madan and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (25 Jan 2021)

Maintenance is to be awarded from the date on which the application is made before the concerned Court

MANU/MH/0068/2021

Criminal

Inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is invoked to challenge the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the monetary relief granted to the applicant under Section 19 and 20 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is made effective from the date of the order.

The applicant preferred an application under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protective restraint order under Section 18 and monetary relief under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 12 of the DV Act in its entirety vide judgment. The wife preferred Criminal Appeal which is partly allowed by judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge. The wife is aggrieved to the extent the monetary relief is not made effective from the date of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act.

The learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any reason for making the monetary relief effective from the date of the order. The circumstances on the basis of which the wife is held entitled to monetary relief existed as on the date of the application. Present Court have not come cross any material to suggest that the proceedings are unduly prolonged, much less due to reasons attributable to the wife. In this view of the matter, the monetary relief ought to have been made effective from the date of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act.

In Rajnesh v. Neha and another the Supreme Court issued exhaustive directions/guidelines on the issue of maintenance including the date from which maintenance is to be awarded. As per the judgment of Supreme Court, maintenance is to be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.

The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside to the extent the monetary relief is made effective from the date of the order and instead of it directed that the monetary relief shall be effective from the date of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act. Application allowed.

Tags : MONETARY RELIEF   ENTITLEMENT   DATE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved