Judgment :- 1. The only point on which this criminal revision petition was admitted and was pressed by the learned counsel before me, was, that maintenance ought not to have been awarded to the first petitioner, the wife, and to her child anterior to the date of the petition under S.488 Crl. P. C. It would appear that a similar petition for maintenance to the first petitioner and her children had been presented on the 6th March, 1958, but was dismissed on the 1st September, 1958. It is said, that this was dismissed pursuant to some understanding between the parties. The present petition was filed on the 2nd September, 1958. The order of the learned Magistrate awards maintenance to the first petitioner and one of her children from the 6th March, 1958. The learned Magistrate has said in the order, that the second petition may be treated as one filed in continuation of the previous petition. I am not aware of any provision of law under which the second petition could be deemed to have been made in continuation of the first petition. S.488 (2) Crl. P. C. says: "Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance." This provision makes it clear that the allowance can be ordered only from the date of the petition. In Janama v. Kuttappu Panicker,1959 K. L. T. 71 a provision allowing maintenance from a date anterior to the date of petition, was held to be illegal in view of S.488 (2), Crl. P. C. 2. I therefore, order, that the provision for the payment of maintenance to the first petitioner and the child anterior to the 2nd September 1958, cannot be sustained and will stand vacated. The rest of the order is upheld. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.