R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 3.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali whereby, the learned Judge has modified the order dated 26.8.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and has directed that the maintenance shall be paid not from the date of filing of the application, but from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, AIR 2008 SC 3006 and on the case of Bacchu Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1700 in order to contend that the learned Magistrate need not have assign any special reasons tor awarding maintenance from the date of the filing of the application. Therefore, the reason given by the learned Judge that the learned Magistrate was legally bound to assign special reasons for making payment of maintenance from the date of filing of the application and since no special reasons have been assigned, therefore, the order of the Magistrate is deserves to be modified, such a reasoning is untenable.
(3.) Despite the fact that notices were served upon the respondent No. 2 in the year 2008, nobody has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court has no other option but to proceed ex parte against him.;