1 2025:CGHC:11095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 307 of 2025 1 - Neelam Sahu W/o Prince Kumar Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Muktidham Chouk Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 2 - Anant Kumar Sahu S/o Prince Kumar Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through The Mother Smt. Neelam Sahu W/o Prince Kumar Sahu, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Muktidham Chouk Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 3 - Akshita Sahu D/o Prince Kumar Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through The Mother Smt. Neelam Sahu W/o Prince Kumar Sahu, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Muktidham Chouk Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Prince Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Horilal Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Sasaha Palari, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 493228 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, an application for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned therein, I am 2 inclined to allow I.A. No. 01/2025 and the delay of 02 days is hereby condoned. 3. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case MJC No. 266/2022 wherein the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur has allowed the application filed by the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance and awarded Rs. 4000/- each to applicant no. 2 and 3 (in total Rs. 8000/-) per month from the date of passing of order, i.e. from 20.11.2024. 4. Brief facts of the case is that applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2010 according to Hindu customs and rituals. Applicant no. 2 and 3 are their children. At present the applicant no. 1 is working as Lecturer in Higher Secondary School, Lormi and is earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. Respondent is working as guest lecturer in Govt. Engineering College, Koni, Bilaspur. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the Supreme Court has issued guideline and direction in the exercise of the powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. The guidelines directed has to be followed to show that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Court/ District Court/ Magistrate Court throughout the country. He further contended that the Supreme Court has issued guidelines in Rajesh Vs. Neha AIR 3 2021 SC 569 6. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy. The Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Neha (supra) has issued the general guidelines and directions on: (a) issue of overlapping jurisdictions (b) payment of interim maintenance (c) criteria for determining quantum of maintenance (d) date from which maintenance to be awarded (e) enforcement of orders of maintenance (f) final directions. 8. In the case-in-hand, the counsel for the applicants is praying to grant the interim maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. The contention of the counsel for the applicants that the application for grant of interim maintenance was filed on 14.12.2021 and the order has passed on 20.11.2024, i.e., after a lapse of about 3 years. 9. Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate may award maitenance either from the date of order or from the date of application. The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a 4 deserted wife and dependant children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years. 10. The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty Vs. Rabindra Nath Sahu (1996) 1 Orissa LR 361 held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provisions, to provide maintenance from the date of the order. 11. Since the applicants have filed an application for grant of interim maintenance on 14.12.2021 and the order has passed on 20.11.2024, i.e., after a lapse of about 3 years, therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have considered the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in proper manner. The applicant no. 1 is having the responsibility of applicant no. 2 who is aged about 13 years only and applicant no. 3 who is aged about 8 years only. Both are school going children and are incurring expenses for their studies which is borne by applicant no. 1 (mother). 12. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her 5 husband. It is neither a matter of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the husband. 13. Therefore, looking to the above dictum and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Neha (supra) and by the Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty Vs. Rabindra Nath Sahu (supra), the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 266/2022 granting the interim maintenance of Rs. 4000 to applicant no. 2 and Rs. 4000/- per month to applicant no. 3 from the date of order, i.e., from 20.11.2024 is hereby set-aside and the respondent herein is directed to pay the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court to applicant no. 2 and applicant no. 3 from the date of application, i.e. from 14.12.2021. 14. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is partly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima