- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, who are wife and son of the applicant, have been awarded main tenance and the rate of Rs. 500 and Rs. 300 respectively under Section 125, Cr. P. C. by an order dated 18-1-99 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Varanasi. This order has been challenged in the above revision under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C.
(2.) I have heard Sri Vinod Prasad, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Coun sel for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was not present at the time of hearing the therefore, could not be heard. The revision has not been pressed on merits and no argument has been ad vanced against the grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. The only argu ment advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has awarded maintenance from the date of application. It is contended that this Court in several cases has directed that reasons should be recorded for awarding the maintenance from the date of application. The judgment shows that no reason has been recorded. The request, therefore, made is that the judgment should be modified to the above extent. Ave considered the arguments, I find that no reason has been recorded for awarding maintenance from the date of ap plication. Accordingly, the order of the Judge, Family Court, Varanasi dated 18-1-99 is modified to this extent that the maintenance awarded by him shall be payable from 18-1-99 Le. the date of his judgment. However, it may clarify that in case any amount of maintenance accrued prior to 18-1-99 has been paid to the opposite parties, neither it shall be recovered from the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 nor it shall be adjusted in the main tenance accrued after 18-1-99.
(3.) THE revision is disposed of finally. Revision disposed of. .;