THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.331 OF 2011 DATED:28.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 02.11.2010, in Crl.R.P.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, wherein the said revision petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, was dismissed, however modifying the order, dated 11.01.2008, in M.C.No.54 of 2005 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada to the effect that the maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month awarded therein shall be effected from the date of the order but not from the date of the petition, as directed by the trial Court. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. On an application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial Court after full-fledged enquiry, awarded Rs.2000/- per month and further directed that the same shall be paid from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, 1st respondent-husband filed Crl.R.P.No.71 of 2008 and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order upheld the award of maintenance, however with a direction that it shall be payable from the date of the order but not from the date of the petition. Assailing the said modification, the wife filed the present revision. 4. Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. states that the said allowance shall be paid from the date of the order or if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance. 5. A plain reading of the above provision would show that payment of maintenance from the date of the order is the norm and such payment from the date of application is only by way of exception. The above provision also reveals that payment of maintenance from the date of application shall have to be specifically ordered by the Court. By necessary implication, it follows that such order can be passed duly recording reasons for such a course. The only reason recorded by the trial Court while ordering payment from the date of the petition is that the husband has not provided any maintenance to the wife before she approached the Court and secondly that the husband has not taken any steps to take the wife back. Such a situation normally exists in almost every case of maintenance and such conduct of the husband, in fact, gives raise to cause of action for filing a maintenance case. The same cannot therefore be considered to be a sufficient ground for awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. Admittedly, during the pendency of the maintenance case, the wife has not filed any petition seeking interim maintenance. 6. In CHIKKAMMA @ PARVATHAMMA & ANOTHER v. YERRISWAMY & ANOTHER[1], this Court held as follows: “It is clear from the above sub-section that the order for payment of maintenance should be effective from the date of order, and the exception is ordering payment from the date of petition and since awarding maintenance from the date of petition, seems to be an exception to the normal rule, recording reasons would be necessary only when Magistrate feels it expedient to order payment of maintenance from the date of petition. That should be so can also be seen from the fact that petitioners in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have a right to seek interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by them. When they failed to file a petition seeking interim maintenance, they cannot blame the Court for not awarding maintenance from the date of petition”. 7. In view of the clear language of Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C., and also in the light of the above decision, the modification effected by the learned Sessions Judge, directing payment of maintenance from the date of the order instead of the date of the petition, does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 8. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th July, 2011. Tsy [1] 1 (2005) DMC 8