Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 125—Order granting maintenance to wife and child—Challenged by both the husband and the wife—Submission of husband that he did not examine himself as a witness on account of the fact that the presiding officer expressed a view that all relevant facts were already on record and his examination was not required—Unaccepted—It has been categorically recorded that husband chose not to lead any evidence in the case—Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that the husband tried to move any application to clarify the such position—Husband was elected as the Municipal Counselor in 2010 and thereafter he contested again in the years 2014 and 2016 although unsuccessfully—Husband had enough means to contest elections twice after passing of the order by the Single judge of High Court—Impugned order passed by Family Court does not suffer from infirmity and the same has been passed in accordance with law in so far as amount of maintenance is concerned—So far as the date of commencement of payment towards amount of maintenance, the judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has clearly held that maintenance awarded should be from the date of application which would be subject to adjustment of maintenance awarded in any other proceeding between the same parties—Petition filed by the wife is partly allowed—Impugned order is amended to the extent that maintenance awarded shall be from the date of application of the petition under Section 125 of CrPC.
[Paras 12 to 14]