Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. - (1.) The instant revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner/wife assailing the order dated March 16, 2017 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in Criminal Revision No. 326/2016.By the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge while affirming the order granting interim maintenance allowance passed by the learned Magistrate in M. Case No. 891/14 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) in favour of the petitioner directed for the payment of the allowance from the date of the order instead of from the date of the application as ordered by the Magistrate.
(2.) The fact leading to the instant revision is that the petitioner/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance from O.P. No.2 which was registered as M Case No. 891 of 2014. She filed another application praying for interim maintenance allowance which was allowed on contest by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas by order dated September 1, 2016 and the O.P. No.2/husband was directed to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs.4,000/- per month within 20th of every English Calendar month commencing from the date of application till the final disposal of the main application. Being aggrieved by the same O.P. No.2/husband preferred revision being Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2016 and the learned additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 parganas by the impugned order while dismissing the revision modified the order of maintenance to the effect that it should be paid from the date of the order and not from the date of application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioner has preferred the instant revision questioning the propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge directing payment of interim maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of the application. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned court below was not justified in directing payment of interim maintenance allowance from the date of the order instead of from the date of the application as ordered by the learned Magistrate. He also submitted that leaned Additional Sessions Judge did not assign any reason as to why the interim maintenance allowance be paid from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. He relied upon the decision in the matter of Sankar Prosad Ghosh Vs. Lakshmi Rani Ghosh, 1998 CalCriLR 101 in support of his submissions.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite no.2 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quite justified in directing payment of interim maintenance from the date of the order as the learned Magistrate without assigning any cogent reason granted interim maintenance allowance from the date of the application.;