M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) - This is the minor daughters revision against the lower revisional Courts order granted her maintenance amount against her father under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code from the date of the order i. e. from 9-12-81 and not from the date of her petition as bad been initially allowed by the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE minor daughter bad filed the application against her father viz, the present non-applicant, for grant of monthly maintenance amount. The father had denied the paternity of the child; and as such, her right to claim any maintenance amount. The trial Court found that the child was a legitimate one; and as such, the trial Court allowed her monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- payable by the present applicants father, from the date of her application i. e. from 8-7-75. The father being aggrieved, preferred the revision in the lower revisional Court. The lower revisional Court maintained the trial Courts order in so far as the childs right for maintenance against the father was concerned. Finding regarding the paternity of the child was upheld by the lower revisional Court. Monthly maintenance too was found to be appropriate. However, since, the trial Court had given no special reasons for allowing the maintenance amount from the date of the childs petition, the trial Courts order in this regard was modified; and it was ordered that the child was entitled to the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- from the date of the order i. e. from 9- 12-81 and not from the date of the application i. e. 8-7-75. Now, the child has preferred the present revision against the same. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant-child has urged that the lower revisional Court was wrong in interfering with the trial Courts order in the matter as to from what date the maintenance amount, should be given. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is stated to be proper. It is vehemently before me that there was no justification for the lower revisional Court to modify the trial Courts order in the matter of the date of enforcement of the order of maintenance. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is stated to be proper. It is vehemently before me that there was no justification for the lower revisional Court to modify the trial Courts order in the matter of the date of enforcement of the order of maintenance. ( 4 ) THE non-applicants, father bas filed his reply to the revision-petition and has also prayed therein, that the lower revisional Courts order regarding grant of maintenance amount from any date, whatsoever, should be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. ( 5 ) THE fathers reply which is actually a petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the order regarding grant of maintenance, is without any merit. Non-applicants paternity of the child having been established by both the Courts below and further the childs right to monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- having been equally upheld by both the Courts below, it cannot be re-agitated by the father in the present revision preferred by the other side, by way of a prayer in his reply. The father having already lost in this regard in his revision preferred in the lower revisional Court, no further revision by him was maintainable in face of sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code. In view of this bar, there is also no scope for any interference suo moto or otherwise in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the merits of the childs present revision petition, the only question to be considered is whether-the maintenance order should be made effective from the date of her application or from the date of initial order passed in this regard. Sub-section (2) of Section 125 shows that such allowance has to be normally payable from the date of the order. In the alternative, it could be equally ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. Reading the Sub-section, it clearly follow that the grant of allowance has normally to be from the date of the order alone; and in case this normal rule is not intended to he followed, then, the Court concerned may well grant the allowance from the date of the application, but, such order should be backed by some reason to support the same. No reason is found to be given by the trial court, at all, as to why it had considered it fit to grant the maintenance amount from the date of the application and not from the date of the order; and it is this which has been adversely commented upon by the lower revisional Court. The lower revisional Court has observed that the father is a mere class IV employee as a Chairman in the Nazul Office, earning a meagre salary. No doubt the maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is found to be pending for more than 5 years in the trial Court but that by itself is no sufficient reason for allowing the maintenance amount from the date of the application particularly when the normal rule is that the maintenance should be granted from the date of the order. In case, maintenance allowance is granted from the date of the application the father would naturally be required to pay a few thousands to clear the arrears and this would undoubtedly be a great hardship to the father. Considering the poor status of the father and his meagre salary after deductions, the lower revisional Court is found to have exercised its discretion judiciously in allowing the maintenance from the date of the order i. e. from 9-12-81 instead of from the date of the application i. e. 8-7-75. ( 7 ) IN the result, thus, childs revision, being without any merit, is dismissed; and the impugned order of the lower revisional Court is maintained. Revision dismissed. .