A single judge of AP HC held that Interim Order for maintenance has to be effective from the date of petition and not from the date of Order.

Note: Slipper shot to those who think dragging the false cases would tire out the lying bitch. Na na… You will be looted in day light.

From Para 5 and 6,

5. Thus, the learned appellate court agreed with the decision of the learned trial court with reference to the legal need and necessity on part of the husband in maintaining his wife and minor child and also affirmed the quantum of monthly maintenance. However, the learned appellate court modified the trial court’s order only with reference to the date from which the awarded maintenance amounts were to be paid. Learned trial court granted interim maintenance from the date of application i.e., on 24.04.2019. Whereas the appellate court set aside that part of the order and directed the interim maintenance to be paid from 01.04.2022.
6. Aggrieved by that modification, the woman and the child preferred this revision.

From Para 8,

8. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submits that the learned appellate court modified the trial court’s order on facts which were never part of the record and the modification is not inconsonance with the law laid down in Rajnesh V. Neha1. The error requires immediate correction as the effect of the erroneous order would make the revision petitioners to lose Rs.9,90,000/-. Therefore, in this revision, this court may have to interfere.

From Para 11, (Importance of pleading properly)

11. Learned trial court granted interim maintenance to be paid from the date of filing of the petition i.e., on 24.04.2019 and the appellate court modified it and directed the said payments to be from 01.04.2022. Learned appellate court recorded that for a period of nearly three years, there was out spread of corona and salaries were not given to private employees and therefore directing such husband to pay maintenance from the date of petition is improper and hence it modified the said order and granted maintenance to be paid from 01.04.2022. During the course of hearing of this revision, it is undisputed on both sides that as a matter of fact, it was never pleaded by the husband that because of corona pandemic, he lost his job or that he did not receive salaries. Therefore, it is clear that the facts that influenced the reasoning of the appellate court were the facts that were never available on record. Thus, deciding a case based on material that was never part of the record amounts to impropriety requiring interference from this court in terms of Section 397 and 401 of the CrPC.

From Para 13, (This is how Judiciary interprets/trumps the Intent of Legislature)

13. The said provision indicates that the order for payment may be from the date of the order or from the date of the application. A bare reading of the provision allows the discretion of the deciding court to grant the maintenance from either of the dates and that discretion normally has to be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances as were brought on record by the parties. However, after noticing the realities of life and litigation and taking a pragmatic view and after a great deal of deliberation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh V. Sneha’s case (mentioned supra 1) at para 109 held that: –
”Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including section 125 CrPC, 1973. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application”
Thus, their Lordships laid down that law stating that awarding maintenance from the date of application was in the interest of Justice and fair play. By virtue of this ruling, the revision petitioners rightly sought interference of this court to rectify the error committed by the appellate court.

Index of DV judgments is here.