- (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated April 6, 1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance to the applicant from the date of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate i. e. , with effect from December 12 1986.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant- petitioner kalalwanti filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance for her self as well as for her two minor daughters. THE learned trial Court dismissed the application of the applicant-petitioner so far as the petitioner was concerned, but granted maintenance @ Rs. 75/- each to the two minor daughters with effect from the date of the order, i. e. , with effect from December 12, 1986. THE present applicant filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, challenging the refusal of the maintenance to herself. No revision petition against the order of the maintenance to both the minor daughters was filed and it was not challenged that the Court should have granted the maintenance from the date of the application to them. THE learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision would have granted the maintenance from the date of the application to them. THE learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by the applicant and awarded maintenance to the applicant also @ Rs. 200/- per month with effect from December 12, 1986, as was granted to the two minor daughters. THE learned Sessions Judge, also maintained the order of grant of the maintenance to the two minor daughters amounting to Rs. 150/- per month (Rs. 75/- to each daughter ). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per sub-section (2) of Section 125, Cr. P. C, while granting the maintenance allowance, it was within the discretion of the trial Court to grant such allowance which shall be payable from the date of the order or from the date of filing of the application for grant of maintenance. The learned trial Court exercised its discretion and awarded maintenance to both the minor daughters from the date of the order instead of from the date of filing of the application. That order, granting the maintenance to the daughters, was not challenged by the applicant and that has become final. The learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition of the applicant-petitioner, granted maintenance to her, also, from the date of the order passed by the trial Court, i. e. , with effect from December 12, 1986. It was well within the discretion of the Court concerned to grant maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of filing of the application for maintenance. The Court has exercised its discretion judiciously. No interference under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is called for. Consequently, the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is dismissed. .;