02.09.2026 Item No.6 Ct. No. 34 nb CRR 109 of 2024 In the matter of: Payel Neogi nee Ghosh ...… Petitioner. Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Mr. Saurav Basu, Mr. Samik Biswas, Ms. Payel Maji, …. For the petitioner. Mr. Supratic Roy, Ms. Mahuya Maity, ….. for the respondent. 1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the s petitioner/wife against an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, 4th Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly whereby an amount of Rs.8,000/- has been granted towards maintenance from the date of passing of the order. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that it is settled proposition of law that the maintenance should be granted from the date of filing of the application unless any such circumstances are found but the learned Court while passing the order, did not assign any reason as to why the order was given effect from the date of passing of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. 2 3. Learned counsel representing the opposite party/husband opposes and submits that there was laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the affidavit of assets and liability and also took several adjournments thereby caused delay in passing the order. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly passed such order, giving effect from the date of passing the order. 4. Having heard the Learned Counsel and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the instant proceeding was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- in March 8, 2022. After considering the affidavit of assets and liability as filed the learned Court upon considering the income of the parties and the respective status and after hearing both the parties, passed an order of maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by both the learned counsel before this Court that however it is wrongfully mentioned in the order portion, such amount was allowed in favour of the petitioner and her son, as admittedly the said son is residing with the father. 6. In view of the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 as well as the catena of decisions where it has been observed that the date of granting maintenance to be reckoned from the date of filing of the application and if it is to be granted from the date of passing the order, appropriate reason 3 must be assigned. On close scrutiny of the order impugned no reasons are found assigned as to why such order was passed giving effect from the date of filing of the application. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the husband that he regularly paid the said amount as passed but huge arrear due will be accrued from the date of filing of the application till the date of order if so allowed by this Court. 8. Therefore, from the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order of the Learned Court of Magistrate warrants modification. 9. Hence order passed by the learned Magistrate is modified to that extent that amount of Rs.8,000/- is to be paid in favour of the petitioner with effect from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 8.3.2022. The opposite party/husband is given liberty to pay the arrear amount to be calculated from such date, in two equal instalment which would fall due from the date of filing of the application till passing of the order. Other portion of the order shall remain unaltered. 10. Accordingly, this revisional application stands allowed in part. 11. Learned counsel is also directed to make endeavour to dispose of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at an earliest without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parities. 4 12. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.)