- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. List has been revised. None responds for the revisionist.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to present revision, briefly stated are that the op posite party No. 2, Smt. Kiran Tripathi filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against her husband, Ashutosh Tripathi, the revisionist, for grant of main tenance allowance with the allegations that the revisionist misbehaved and maltreated her, to press demand of Hero Honda Motor Cycle and Ginny in dowry. When the greed of her husband could not be fulfilled he gave such a corporal assault that even her ear was torn. In such state of condi tions she came to her father's house and is living with him. It is asserted by the opposite party No. 2 in her application that her husband is an employee in the Post Office, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur and earning a salary of Rs. 3,000/-per month, that she is unable to main tain herself and that though her husband has sufficient means but neglects to maintain her. The opposite party contested the application with the assertions that the opposite party No. 2 tried to persuade him to live with her in her father's house, that he did not agree to her proposal due to family circumstances, that she left his house on her own accord and went to the house of her father with her brother-in-law. It is further asserted that opposite party No. 2 imparts tuition and earns Rs. 2,000/- per month, thus, she is able to maintain herself. Both the parties adduced evidence with a view to establish their respective asser tions made before the trial Court. The trial Court on considering the material evidence and having regard to the fact that Smt Kiran Tripathi has filed a complaint under Section 49&-A, I. P. C. , against her husband and that the husband has filed a suit for divorce and also visualising the existing tense atmosphere be tween them, allowed the application and granted maintenance allowance to Smt. Kiran Tripathi at the rate of 500/- per month from the date of the application i. e. 8-5-95.
(3.) I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment and order. In the light of the grounds taken by the revisionist to assail the order of the trial Court the only legal question which appears to have been posed in this revision is whether the trial Court has committed error in granting maintenance allowance from the date of the application. In this context a perusal of the Section 125 (2), Cr. P. C. is necessary to arrive at the correct conclusion, which provides that- "maintenance allowance shall he payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for main tenance. ";