JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition arises out of the proceedings under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code Notice of this petition was given to the non-petitioners and Mr A. L. Mehta has put in appearance. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. I am of the opinion that record being available, this revision petition should be disposed of at this stage. 2. The learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (North) vide his order dated September 14, 1981 holding that petitioner having sufficient means to maintain his wife Smt. Shusheela Kumari and her minor daughter Miss Sandhaya neglected and refused to maintain them and that they have no means to maintain themselves, awarded a sum of Rs. 250 per month from the date of application as maintenance to both the wife and minor daughter. 3. Smt. Susheela Kumari filed an application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the court of learned Magistrate on July 29, 1975 for awarding maintenance @ Rs. 300 per month for both of them. It was mentioned in the application that petitioner was having monthly income of Rs. 1,300 and besides that his mother was running money lending business and earning Rs. 150 per month. It was further stated in the petition that she was unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. It was also stated that petitioner has married one Tarun Kumari during subsistence of marriage with Susheela. In the reply it was not disputed by the petitioner that Susheela was his duly married wife and that Miss Sandhaya was his daughter, but a case was set up that she herself has deserted her husband and petitioner was still willing to maintain them in case they return to him. The allegation in the application for maintenance that petitioner has married one Tarun Kumari was denied. The learned Magistrate made inquiry into the matter and in his judgment dated July 13, 1979 holding that monthly income of the petitioner was Rs. 700-800 allowed maintenance @. Rs. 250 per month to wife and minor child. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner before learned Sessions Judge who vide his order dated June 6, 1951 accepted the Revision Petition and remanded the case to the Magistrate to give a definite finding as to what was the actual income of the petitioner. 700-800 allowed maintenance @. Rs. 250 per month to wife and minor child. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner before learned Sessions Judge who vide his order dated June 6, 1951 accepted the Revision Petition and remanded the case to the Magistrate to give a definite finding as to what was the actual income of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties held that monthly income of the petitioner was Rs. 800 and awarded a sum of Rs. 250 per month as maintenance to Smt. Susheela and her minor daughter till such time as minor daughter attains majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 150 per month to Smt. Susheela. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It may be stated at the very outset that there is sufficient material on record that petitioner having sufficient means has refused or neglected to maintain his wife and minor daughter, who are unable to maintain themselves. The only question is as to whether amount of Rs. 250 as maintenance is excessive and from what date the amount should be awarded. 5. Before I take up the first point it may be stated that question as to whether the amount of maintenance is payable from the date of application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code or from the date of order of the learned Magistrate is no longer open to challenge. When earlier the learned Magistrate had allowed the application of the wife and had granted a sum of Rs. 250 as maintenance, a revision was filed by the petitioner in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Out of the two points agitated before him one was as to whether order of the Magistrate that the amount is payable from the date of the application calls for interference. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held against the petitioner and the case was remanded to the court of the Magistrate with a direction that he should rehear the parties and determine about the monthly income of the petitioner. That apart under sub-section (2) of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code the allowance under sub-section (1) of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code shall be payable from the date of the order or date of application for the maintenance it so ordered. That apart under sub-section (2) of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code the allowance under sub-section (1) of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code shall be payable from the date of the order or date of application for the maintenance it so ordered. The Magistrate has, therefore, jurisdiction to order that the amount should be payable from the date of application and no interference is generally called for in such an order of the Magistrate. 6. The learned Magistrate has discussed the evidence on record and arrived at a finding that petitioner's monthly income was Rs. 800. While arriving at this finding he has taken into consideration the fact that there is 7 bighas of land in village Nai Tehsil and District Udaipur and the petitioner was cultivating the land on behalf of his mother. He also took into consideration the fact that ancestral house was sold and the sale proceeds of the house were given on interest and thus out of that amount the mother carries on business of money lending. The petitioner was a dalal and was having income from this dalali business. Taking into consideration all these facts and the evidence on record the Magistrate arrived at finding that petitioner's monthly in crore was Rs. 800, while sitting in revision I do not consider it proper to interfere in the finding based on sufficient material on record. But the application as filed on July 27, 1975 and the learned Magistrate passed the order ultimately on September 14, 1991. It will be, therefore, proper if the amount of maintenance is reduced for the period in between filing the application and passing of the order of the Magistrate. 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the case it is hereby ordered that wife Smt. Susheela Kumari shall be entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 100 per month from the date of application till 13-9-81 and shall further be entitled to Rs. 50 from the date of application till 13-9-81 for her minor daughter from the date of order of the learned Magistrate dated September 14, 1981 it is hereby ordered that Smt. Susheela Kumari shall get maintenance @ Rs. 125 per month and her minor daughter Rs. 75 per month till either Miss Sandhya is married or attains majority whichever is earlier.Petition allowed. *******