I.S.TIWANA, J. - (1.) THE sole prayer made in this case is that the maintenance should have been granted to the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with effect from the date of the filing of the application on February 19, 1981 and not from the date of the order dated November 26, 1984. I, however, find no merit in this contention in view of the observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order which are to the following effect :- "As regards the Revision of the wife is concerned, counsel for the wife could not point out any thing to justify enhancement in the maintenance allowed to the wife counsel for the wife contended that the amount should have been made payable from the date of petition. After going through the fife, I am of the view that the order of the trial Court cannot be interfered with at this stage on this ground. Under Section 125 sub-section (2) of the Cr.P.C. provides as under :- "Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance." "A perusal of the above shows that the amount of maintenance is to be ordered from the date of order unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded makes it payable from the date of application. In the present case the Court has refused to make the order payable from the date of application. This discretion exercised by the trial Court can only be interfered with in the Revision if it is proved to have been exercised in an arbitrary manner. No such circumstances has been brought on the file. The wife has not lead any evidence to prove that during the pendency of the petition, she had to borrow amount and came under debt. It is also admitted that there is maintenance order for the period during which this petition remained pending in favour of the wife, passed by the Matrimonial Court at Delhi. The wife can realise the amount by execution of the said order. So there is no just ground to make the order payable from the date of petition. In Kumari Lachmani v. Ramu, 1983 Matrimonial Law Reporter 203 : Nathu v. Kala Bai, 1981 Marriage Law Journal 53; Kailash Chand v. Chaman Lal, 1982(2) RCR(Rent) 581 (P&H) : 1985 Marriage Law Journal 272, it has been laid down that the order for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be from the date of order. Counsel for respondent has cited before me an authority made under Section 488 Cr.P.C. Re. Jangir Kaur v. Bhura Singh, 1965 H.L.R. 247 to show that the order should be from the date of petition. This authority of our own High Court cannot be accepted because there is a change in law under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as reproduced above, which was not there earlier. So the revision of the wife also merits dismissal and is dismissed as such."
(2.) I find no infirmity in this order. This petition is thus dismissed. Petition dismissed.;