THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1833 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 09.10.2003 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.37 of 2003 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar to the extent of ordering maintenance from the date of order instead of from the date of petition as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Siricilla and consequently to restore the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Siricilla in M.C.No.39 of 2000. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioners herein are the wife and daughter of the first respondent herein and they fled M.C.No.39 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Siricilla seeking maintenance from the first respondent herein. The learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence let in by both sides, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. to each of the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition. The first respondent questioned the said order dated 08.07.2003 before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar by way of Crl.R.P.No.37 of 2003 and the learned Additional District Judge while upholding the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and the first respondent is bound to maintain them, however, directed the first respondent herein to pay the said amount of maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. to each of the petitioners from the date of order instead of from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved thereby the wife and daughter approached this court and filed the present petition. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Whether the maintenance is to be awarded from the date of petition or from the date of order is purely discretion of the court, which is passing the said order. Here, the petition was filed on 20.10.2000 and the maintenance was directed to be paid by order dated 08.7.2003. The difference in between these two dates is about three years. If it is from the date of petition the wife i.e. first petitioner is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.18,000/- approximately towards maintenance. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of Rs.18,000/-, this court directs the first respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the first petitioner towards additional amount of maintenance. If any amounts have already been paid towards maintenance, the same shall be given credit to. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, in view of the fact that she attained majority and since it is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that she is gainfully employed, she is not entitled for any maintenance and hence this revision, in so far as the second petitioner, shall stand dismissed. 5 This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010