- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. S. S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. repre senting the State of U. P. Notice was sent to the opposite party No. 2 but it has not been returned after service until now and no body has put in appearance for the opposite party No. 2. Since the revision petition is against the maintenance al lowed under Section 125, Cr. P. C. it is not in the interest of opposite party No. 2 to transfer the matter and accordingly the revision petition is taken up for hearing with the help of the materials on record.
(2.) THE argument of Mr. Tripathi against the impugned order is limited to the attack that without recording any reason the Court below has directed the maintenance to be paid from the date of application whereas the provisions under Section 125 (2), Cr. P. C. specifies that the maintenance will normally be paid from the date of order unless for reasons to be noted by the Court if the maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of ap plication. To appreciate the argument of Sri Tripathi the impugned order dated 28th January, 1998 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in case No. 10 of 1996, has been carefully perused. The learned Judge, Family Court, has not given any reason why he has directed the main tenance to be paid from the date of application. The provisions of law under ection 125 (2) Cr. P. C. and the Court's view in a number of cases is that without giving reasons maintenance allowance should not be allowed from the date of application. Since the learned Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur has not given any reason for allowing the maintenance from the date of application the argument of Sri Tripathi on this score is sound and ac cepted. The impugned order is modified to that extent. The maintenance allowance directed to be paid from the date of ap plication is modified and it should be paid from the date of order i. e. from 28- 1-1998. With this modification in the impugned order the revision petition is partly al lowed. The rest portion of the impugned order is upheld. Revision partly allowed. .;