R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases -cum -Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby he has modified the order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, vide order dated 20.10.1997, the learned Civil Judge had allowed the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and had directed that the maintenance of Rs. 400 per month shall be paid to the petitioner by the non -petitioner from the date of filing of the application. Since, the non -petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases -cum -Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 3.12.1999 the learned Judge was pleased to direct that the maintenance amount should be paid not from the date of the application, but from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. Hence, this miscellaneous petition before us. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Gayatri, was married to the non -petitoner, Om Prakash, on 22.1.1987 according to the Hindu rites. Just within four months of the marriage, differences arose between the parties because of the alleged cruel treatment meted out to the petitioner by the non -petitioner and his family members. According to the petitioner, she fell ill in May, 1987. But, despite her illness, her husband and her in -laws did not look after her. Subsequently, on 6.5.1987 her father took her back to her parental home. Since then, she has been living with her brother. She has also claimed that on 23.7.1988 her husband remarried with one Manjula Devi, D/o Motilal. She further claimed that since she is unable to maintain herself, therefore, the non -petitioner should be directed to provide maintenance to her under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
(3.) IN order to prove her case, the petitioner examined six witnesses and submitted one document. In order to substantiate his case, the non -petitioner examined two witnesses but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 20.10.1997 the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the non -petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 400 per month as mentioned above. The non -petitioner had filed a revision petition against the said order. Vide order dated 3.12.1999, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order dated 20.10.1997 as mentioned above.;