Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that order impugned passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order nor the finding recorded by Court below in the impugned order can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to the grounds of revision and on basis thereof he submits that none of the findings returned by Court below on the issues/points of determination framed by Court below have been challenged. He, therefore, submits that once the findings cannot be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. Revisionist has already initiated divorce proceedings against applicant opposite party 2 is is clearly mentioned in internal page 18 of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 13.4.2022. There is nothing on record to show that applicant has maintained his wife since 4.3.2019, when she was ousted from her marital home. As such, revisionist has failed to discharge his legal and moral obligations, inasmuch as applicant opposite party 2 is his legally wedded wife and revisionist is bound to maintain her. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to judgement of Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , wherein it has been held that maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application and not from the date of order. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of revisionist.
