Krishna Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 17.9.99 passed by learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the maintenance case, the learned Magistrate allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/ - per month from the date of judgment. In the revision, however, the amount of maintenance was allowed from the date of application. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that it is finding of fact and satisfaction of the learned Magistrate whether there was any delay on the part of the husband in disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate found no such delaying tactics on the part of the husband and the maintenance was allowed from the date of order. It is contended that the learned Sessions Judge, in revision, could not have interfered with this finding. Learned Sessions Judge although referred certain case law but still he did not state that any undue delay was caused by the husband. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in making modification in the order of the learned Magistrate. The revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.9.99 is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1.12.98 is confirmed.;