- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a criminal revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 7-1-1998 passed by Judge, Family Court, Meerut by which he awarded the maintenance of Rs. 400 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 300 per month to her daughter from the date of the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the Revisionist, Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the respon dent No. 1 and the learned A. G. A. and have perused the entire evidence. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the main tenance has been awarded from the date of the application, Le. , 24-10-1994. That no reason has been recorded for awarding the maintenance from the date of the applica tion. It is contended that the maintenance from the date of the application can be awarded only after recording the reasons and the order to that extent is illegal. M unable to agree with the con tention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. Clause (2) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. reads as follows: "such allowance shall be payable froM the date of the order, or, if so ordered, froM the date of the application for Maintenance.
(3.) UNDER this clause, therefore, the maintenance can be awarded from the date of the application as well. This provision does not require recording of any reason for awarding maintenance from the date of the application. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the argument that reason should have been recorded for awarding the maintenance from the date of the ap plication. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a stamp vendor and according to his licence he can sell the stamps upto denomination of Rs. 3,000 only. That earning Rs. 700 per month only and there fore, the maintenance awarded is very ex cessive.;