1 2025:CGHC:34965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 172 of 2023 Smt. Rajwanti Yadav W/o Heermani Yadav Aged About 22 Years Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Jamuniyapath, Police Station- Sanna, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Heeramani Yadav S/o Madan Yadav Aged About 24 Years Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Jamuniyapath, Police Station- Sanna, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For applicant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. For non-applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 further be pleased to modify the award effective from the date of his application instead of dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned (learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), in Misc. Cr. Case No. 21/2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized in the year 2014 according to Hindu rituals. After some time, the non-applicant and his family members started demanding dowry from the applicant. Due to her inability to fulfill such demands, she was subjected to continuous harassment and physical torture. On 16.06.2018, the non-applicant left the applicant at her parental home. Subsequently, on 09.11.2018, the non-applicant took the applicant back with an assurance that she would no longer be harassed. However, the applicant was again subjected to cruelty, and a written complaint was lodged at Police Station Sanna on 26.11.2018. Thereafter, a social meeting was convened by villagers for reconciliation, but the non-applicant refused to take the applicant back. Upon the advice of the counseling center, the non-applicant again took the applicant with him on 12.01.2019, but she was again harassed on 05.02.2019 and returned to her parental house. The applicant further alleged that the non-applicant had solemnized a second marriage with one Urmila Bai. She, therefore, demanded ₹20,000/- per month as maintenance. The learned Family Court, after appreciation of the entire record, awarded ₹4,000/- per month to the applicant Rajwanti 3 from the date of the order, i.e., 29.10.2022. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, while granting maintenance to the applicant (which was to be paid by the non-applicant/husband), directed that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of the impugned order and not from the date of the application. It is further submitted that the Family Court has not assigned any reason for granting maintenance from the date of the order instead of the date of the application. On this limited ground, it is urged that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration with regard to the date from which maintenance is to be made payable. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/husband with respect to this specific issue, he fairly conceded to the position that the Family Court had not recorded any reason as to why the maintenance was made payable from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions of both parties, it is observed that the applicant’s grievance is limited to the fact that the learned Family Court directed maintenance to be payable from the date of the order (29.10.2022) instead of the date of the application, without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per settled law, in the absence of special reasons, maintenance 4 should ordinarily be granted from the date of the application. On a pointed query, learned counsel for the non-applicant fairly conceded that the Family Court gave no justification for this and had no objection if the matter is remanded on this limited point. In view of this, the matter is remitted back to the Family Court to reconsider and pass a fresh order regarding the effective date of maintenance. It is made clear that the amount of maintenance already granted shall remain undisturbed. 8. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Family Court, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan