JUDGMENT 1. - This order will decide two miscellaneous petitions No 245/87 and 303/87 filed in this court respectively by Smt. Kiran and the respondent Bansilal under section 482 Cr. P.C. 2. It is not a disputed fact that Smt. Kiran is married wife of Bansilal and that she gave birth to two daughters named Indira and Munni from him. According to Smt. Khan, she was ill-treated by her husband and mother-in-law. She also used to be beaten on several occasion. Her father tried to advice Bansi Lal to well treat Smt. Kiran but with no effect. Ultimately in the month of 2nd Jeth of Samvat 2037, Bansi Lal and his mother turned Smt. Kiran out of the house after retaining her ornaments. It was also alleged that Bansi Lal has remarried with another lady named Smt. Geeta who is living with him in his house as a second wife. So far as Smt Kiran is concerned, she is living with her father Ramratan. On December 18, 1980 Smt Kiran made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagore for award of maintenance under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. 3. Husband Bansi Lal denied the allegation that Smt. Kiran was turned out by him or his mother after beating her. On the other band, he asserted that Smt. Kiran herself in the month of 1st Jeth of Samvat 2037 came to the shop of Bansi Lal and after throwing her daughter Munni aged seven months at the shop went away and was living with her father Ramratan. Bansi Lal sent two letters dated 2nd July, 1980 and 4th August, 1980 to Smt. Kiran to return to the house but she did not come back to her matrimonial home. It was alleged that father of Smt. Kiran told that Bansilal can take another lady in `nata' and, therefore, in order that her daughter Munni may be looked after properly, he performed customary `nata' marriage with Smt. Geeta. 4. After recording evidence, the Judicial Magistrate. Nagore by his judgment dated October 18, 1984 relied upon the version put forward by Smt. Kiran and held that it was the husband who had neglected his wife Smt. Kiran. The sending of two alleged letters by Bansi Lal to his wife on 2nd July, 1980 and 4th August, 1980 was disbelieved. 4. After recording evidence, the Judicial Magistrate. Nagore by his judgment dated October 18, 1984 relied upon the version put forward by Smt. Kiran and held that it was the husband who had neglected his wife Smt. Kiran. The sending of two alleged letters by Bansi Lal to his wife on 2nd July, 1980 and 4th August, 1980 was disbelieved. It was held that it was not disputed that the husband had kept another lady Smt. Geeta with him as his wife. As to the financial capacity of the husband, it was found that he is carrying on cloth business in a shop and from that business he is earning about Rs. 300/- per month. Apart from that, it was held that the husband also owns a house and agricultural land. Looking to all these facts and circumstances, the Judicial Magistrate, Nagore fixed an amount of Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance to be given to the wife Smt. Kiran and an amount of Rs 75/- as maintenance amount for the daughter Indira. These amounts were made payable from the date of the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Nagore dated October 18, 1984. 5. Aggrieved by this order, Smt. Kiran filed revision No. 73/84 before the Sessions Judge, Nagore. The sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the Judicial Magistrate and dismissed his revision on May 19, 1987. Smt. Kiran has filed the present application under section 482 Cr. P.C. for modifying the order of the Judicial Magistrate in (wo respects. Firstly, Smt Kiran has stpted that the maintenance allowance should have been awarded from the date of her application i.e. December 18, 1980 and not from the date of the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Nagore. Secondly she has prayed that the amount of maintenance of Rs. 150/- for herself and Rs. 75/- for her daughter per month inadequate and the amount should be increased to Rs. 300/- per month. 6. Bansi Lal has filed petition No. 303 of 1987 under section 482 Cr. P.C. and in bis application, he has prayed that the application of Smt. Kiran under section 125 Cr.P.C. may be dismissed for the reason that he was always ready to keep his wife with him and has not turned her out from the house. Thus the contention of Bansilal it that he had not neglected Smt. Kiran. 7. P.C. and in bis application, he has prayed that the application of Smt. Kiran under section 125 Cr.P.C. may be dismissed for the reason that he was always ready to keep his wife with him and has not turned her out from the house. Thus the contention of Bansilal it that he had not neglected Smt. Kiran. 7. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that it was Bansi Lal and her mother who ill-treated Smt Kiran and had turned her out of (be house. This finding of fact cannot be disturbed in a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. Moreover, there is evidence of Gopikishan PW2 who is close neighbour of Bansilal and he has deposed that Smt Kiran was ill-treated and also used to be beaten. Fateh Mohammed DW2 has also admitted that father of Smt. Kiran had complained that his daughter was not being ill-treated in her in-laws house. So far as letters Ex D/3 and D/4 are concerned, they were rightly disbelieved. It is pertinent to note that these letters were stated to be originals though produced by the husband and not by Smt. Kiran. Further they were not even sent by registered post. The original letters were not got produced from Smt. Kiran. It is not disputed that the husband has performed Nata marriage with Smt. Geeta and Smt. Geeta is living with him either as a wife or as mistress. Explanation to Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. provides that if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. It is thus clear that it is the husband who has neglected to maintain his wife Smt. Kiran. As to the quantum of the maintenance, both the courts below have found the amount of Rs. 150/-per month and Rs. 75/- per month for wife and daughter Indira as reasonable. There is inadequate material on the record to show the precise or even approximate monthly income of the husband. The wife has herself stated that the husband earns about Rs. 300/- per month from his cloth shop. It is true that the husband holds some agricultural land but no entry from the revenue records has been produced to show the exact area of the land held by him. The wife has herself stated that the husband earns about Rs. 300/- per month from his cloth shop. It is true that the husband holds some agricultural land but no entry from the revenue records has been produced to show the exact area of the land held by him. In circumstances, it cannot be held that the husband is in a capacity to pay the amount of maintenance more than that fixed by the judicial Magistrate, Nagore. In the absence of clear evidence to establish that the husband has capacity to afford more amount than that which had been fixed as maintenance no interference in a petition under section 482 Cr PC. is called for. After all the husband has to maintain himself and the other child with him. Smt. Geeta and the husband's mother also. 8. As to the date from which maintenance should have been allowed, sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Cr P.C. provides that such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or. if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. Learned counsel for Smt. Kiran referred to the decision in the case of Dinesh Chand v. Smt. Maya Devi reported in 1986 (2) WLN 514 . The facts in that case were different in as much as the husband in that case had filed a petition for divorce against the wife in which an order of maintenance had been made by the Court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The husband withdrew the petition for divorce in order to avoid the payment of the amount of maintenance pending divorce petition ordered by the District Judge. Further in that case Additional Sessions Judge had in application under section 125 Cr. P.C. ordered the payment of maintenance amount from the date of the application. That order was not interfered in the petition of the husband under section 482 Cr P.C. In the instant case, such is not the position. There are no special circumstances existing in the present case which can justify the award of maintenance from the date of the application. That order was not interfered in the petition of the husband under section 482 Cr P.C. In the instant case, such is not the position. There are no special circumstances existing in the present case which can justify the award of maintenance from the date of the application. Ordinarily the maintenance allowance is payable from the date of the order and it is only in special circumstances that the order of maintenance can be made from the the date of the application It has already been observed that the financial capacity of the husband is not so good as to justify the amount of maintenance from the date of application. 9. Before parting with this order, reference may also be made to the two decisions of this Court relied upon on behalf of the respondent. In Banwari Bai v. Mohd. Ishaq, reported in 1982 RLW 600 , both the courts below had held that it was the wife who was guilty of not living with the husband. In instant case both the courts below have found to the contrary. The next decision relied upon is in the case of Salma v. Abdul Gaffar, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 170 of 1986) decided by a learned single Judge of this Court on March 12, 1987 . In that case the learned single Judge distinguished the matter before him on the ground that lady in that case was a muslim wife who had earlier deserted her husband. It was held that the desertion of the wife was the cause for his second marriage of the husband. Firstly, at the relevant time there was no distinction between a Hindu wife or a muslim wife and secondly, in the instant case it has been found that it is the husband who had turned out the wife and it was not the wife who had deserted the husband. 10. Consequently both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 245, of 1987 and 303 of 1987 have no force in them and both of them are dismissed.Both petitions dismissed. *******