Bhopal Ram Purohit vs Geeta

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner herein is aggrieved of the order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.05/2023, vide which the appeal was dismissed. The order challenged before the learned Sessions Court is the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road in Criminal Misc. Case No.234/2022, whereby the application for maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, filed by the respondent-wife was allowed and learned trial court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each (Total Rs.8,000/-) for two minor children. Since the learned trial court did not mention the date from which the interim maintenance was to be paid, the respondent-wife filed an application, which was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2023 and interim maintenance was ordered to be paid from the date of filing of application.

Heard

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court could not have reviewed its own order. The learned trial court has committed error while reviewing its order and fixed the date of granting maintenance from the date of filing of application instead of from the date of order i.e. 21.02.2023. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court rendered in the cases of Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors. : AIR 2001 SC 43 and Atul Shukla Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. : SLP (Crl.) 1166 of 2019, decided on 06.05.2019.

In principle I am in agreement with the proposition of law canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate could not have reviewed his own order in view of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. coupled with the judgments ibid. But a perusal of the above judgments reveal that the offences involved therein were Section 364 & 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and no doubt it was held that once the final order had been passed, it could not have been reviewed by the court. However, here is a case of quasi criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord.

It is settled position of law that interim maintenance as and when awarded on an application filed by the wife is ordinarily to be granted with effect from the date of filing the application for such maintenance. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate had powers to take supplementary measures and pass the impugned order. I do not think that the same amounts to review of his order.

The earlier order was only to determine the monthly maintenance and supplementary subsequent order i.e. dated 02.12.2023 under challenge herein is only to secure the ends of justice by directing the husband that the maintenance be paid with effect from the date of application.

In view of the above, I find no grounds to interfere.

Dismissed accordingly.