IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.40 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.05.2011 Ashok Kumar … …Petitioner Versus Urmila Devi & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Bhupender Ahuja, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Petitioner approaches this Court against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, affirming the judgment and order of the learned trial Court allowing the application filed by the wife and the minor praying for an increase in maintenance. 2. The learned Court, on the grounds urged and evidence on record holds that the maintenance was granted initially on 20.3.2003 and this requires to be revised because of the circumstances which have been brought on the record of the case and duly considered by the Court below vide a detailed order. One of them 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 being that the minor has been admitted to a public school and it is not possible to maintain him on Rs.500/- per month. The order specifically directs that the amount to be paid from the date of the application. This order was challenged in revision which was dismissed straight on the ground that the altered circumstances have been established by the respondent herein and that there is no ground for interference. 3. Learned counsel submits that the order is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the altered maintenance could have been granted from the date of the order and not from the date of application. He places reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt.Krishna Jain vs. Dharam Raj Jain, 1992 Cri.L.J. 1028, in support of his contention, in which the Court interpreting Section 125(2) held:- “19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the `date of order’ in S.125(2) means the date of order of the Magistrate and not the date of revisional order. Gafoor Ahmed’s case so far it directs payment of allowance from the date of order of the revisional Court, is not good law. The answers to the questions referred are:- (i) Recording of reasons is essential in either case namely when the maintenance is granted from the date of application or from the date of order. 3 (ii) In the absence of reasons, it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the “date of order”. (iii) The “date of order” in S.125(2) means the date of Magistrate’s order and not the revisional order. The record be placed before the single Judge for disposal of the revisions. Order accordingly.” (p-1033) 4. Adverting to the provisions of Section 127 all I need to notice is that it deals with the altered/ changed circumstances and in this case obviously the Court has held that such circumstances have been established from the date when the application has been made. There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed. May 13, 2011 (Dev Darhsan Sud) (aks) Judge.