SC: Reserved Category Candidate Who Availed Prelims Relaxation Cannot Claim an Unreserved Seat  ||  SC: Public Sector Enterprises Cannot Act Against Retired Employees Without Clear Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Single FIR is Permissible in Mass Cheating Cases Arising From One Conspiracy  ||  SC: Courts Cannot Take Cognizance of Time-Barred Cheque Bounce Cases Without Condoning Delay  ||  SC: Exoneration in Disciplinary Proceedings Does Not Always Bar Criminal Prosecution  ||  SC: Judge Cannot Be Presumed Biased Merely Because a Litigant’s Relative Is Police or Court Staff  ||  Delhi HC: Delays From Medical Review Cannot Justify Ante-Dated Seniority For BSF Candidates  ||  Allahabad HC: Being ‘Proclaimed Offender’ Does Not Completely Bar Grant of Anticipatory Bail  ||  Delhi HC: Abortion by a Married Woman For Marital Discord is Legal under The MTP Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Fraud Has No Time Limit and Directors Cannot Use Delay As a Defense    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved