R. K. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) - This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case No. 1418/86 (Shriram v. Gangabai ). ( 2 ) THIS is a revision filed by the wife Gangabai against the order dated 5-6-1986 passed by the Addi. Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar Camp Khargone in Cr. Revision No. 11/86 modifying the order dated 4-11-1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Khargone in Misc. Cr. Case No. 34/83. ( 3 ) THE applicant had preferred a claim for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the opponent-husband Shivram in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khargone claiming maintenance Rs. 500/- per month which was allowed, to the extent of Rs. 200/- per month by the learned Magistrate. In revision filed by the opponent-husband in the Court of the learned Addi. Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, the amount of maintenance has been reduced to Rs. 125/- per month by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed this revision. ( 4 ) THE opponent-husband has, on the other hand filed a Misc Criminal Case No. 1418/86 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned, order challenging the grant of maintenance from the date of the claim-application i. e. , 23-7-1983 instead of the date of the Trialmagistrates order dated 4-11-1985. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel and having considered the orders of the Courts below and the evidence on record. I have come to the conclusion that this revision must be allowed and that the Misc. Criminal Case No. 1418/86 filed by the husband must be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 200/- per month having regard to the means of the husband and the requirement of personal expenses as stated by the applicant in her cross-examination. It has been established that the opponent- husband Shivram and his father Mangilal have ancestral agricultural lands in village Julvania and Maiharja and that 4. 854 hectares are recorded in the name of the husband-Shivram in village Julvania and 12. 821 hectares in the name of father Mangilal at village Maijarha. It has been established that the opponent- husband Shivram and his father Mangilal have ancestral agricultural lands in village Julvania and Maiharja and that 4. 854 hectares are recorded in the name of the husband-Shivram in village Julvania and 12. 821 hectares in the name of father Mangilal at village Maijarha. It is stated by Shiv ram (NAW-1) that his fatherts land were irrigated by a NALA and that he bas facility of a motor- pump for irrigation. He has, however, stated that for the last 12 months he is living separate from his father. The applicant had stated the income of the opponent-husband to be Rs. fifty to sixty thousand rupees whereas the opponent-husband had stated his income to be three to four thousand rupees annually. The applicant bas been cross-examined about her personal requirement and from what she has stated in that regard, the learned Trial Magistrate has assessed her requirement at Rs. 200/- per month for modest living. ( 7 ) IN my opinion, the amount of Rs. 200/ per month awarded by the Trial Magistrate as maintenance, appears in the circumstances, to be just and proper. The learned Revisional Court of the Addi. Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 125/- per month on the basis that the opponent had stated his annual income to be three to four thousand rupees and that the lands are all ancestral and that he had been joint with his father. The husband has, however, stated in his evidence recorded on 26. 8-1985 that he had separated from his father for the last 12 months. But there is no plea or document of partition in support of his statement about separation. In the circumstances, the reduction of the amount of maintenance granted by the Trial Court does not appear to be reasonable. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the modification in the amount of maintenance from Rs, 200/- to Rs. 125/- per month as ordered by the learned Revisional Court is liable to be set aside and the order of the learned Trial Magistrate in this regard is liable to be restored. ( 9 ) IN Misc. Criminal Case No. 1418/86. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the modification in the amount of maintenance from Rs, 200/- to Rs. 125/- per month as ordered by the learned Revisional Court is liable to be set aside and the order of the learned Trial Magistrate in this regard is liable to be restored. ( 9 ) IN Misc. Criminal Case No. 1418/86. which has been filed by the husband Shivram, the learned counsel appearing for him has contended that while awarding maintenance from, the date of application instead of from the date of order, the learned Trial Magistrate has not recorded any reason justifying the award from the date of application. He has referred to section 125 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides as under: Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order of if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. It ill the submission of the learned counsel that a proper construction of this provision it would appear that normally the payment of allowance should be ordered from the date of order and if the Trial Magistrate instead finds it just and proper to order payment of allowance from the date of application for maintenance, he must record reasons therefore. In the instant case, the learned counsel contends, the learned Trial Magistrate has not recorded any reasons to justify payment of allowance from the date of the application for maintenance. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied on a decision of this Court in Lachmani v. Ramu. ( 10 ) IN reply, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Trial Magistrate hall given a finding that the applicant was forcibly turned out by the husband opponent and that she was ill-treated and beaten by him and the husband never cared or tried to bring back the applicant. On the contrary, he married another woman. This finding has not been upset in revision. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that having regard to the circumstances of the case found against the husband-opponent, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in awarding the maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance. On the contrary, he married another woman. This finding has not been upset in revision. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that having regard to the circumstances of the case found against the husband-opponent, the learned Trial Magistrate was justified in awarding the maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance. ( 11 ) IN Lachmani v. Ramu (supra) it has been observed that in case the normal rule of granting allowance from the date of the order is not intended to be followed, than the Court concerned may well grant the allowance from the date of application, but such order should be backed by some reason to support the same. In that case it was found that no reason was given by the Trial Magistrate 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 order. ( 12 ) BUT the instant case is distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the learned Trial Magistrate has given a finding that the applicant was forcibly turned out by the husband opponent who never cared or tried to bring back the applicant and on the contrary married another woman. In such circumstances, it is not difficult to conceive that the applicant was driven to seek help and obligation of others quite unwillingly in order to survive during the period of litigation. The husband having not cared for the maintenance of the applicant-wife during the period of litigation nor having made any attempt to bring her back till the filing of the application would not be justified in contending that the applicator should not have been allowed maintenance for the period of litigation. The reasons for awarding the maintenance allowance for the period of litigation i. e. , from the date of application to the date of the order is, in my opinion, implicit in the finding given by the Trial Magistrate as aforesaid. ( 13 ) IN Smt. Sabitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant their Lordships held that interim maintenance pending final disposal of the application can be granted directing the husband to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance pending disposal of the main application. ( 13 ) IN Smt. Sabitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant their Lordships held that interim maintenance pending final disposal of the application can be granted directing the husband to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance pending disposal of the main application. Their Lordships further observed that a reading or the provisions relating to maintenance shows that they are intended to provide for a preventive remedy for securing payment of maintenance which - can be granted quickly and in deserving cases with effect from the date of application itself. ( 14 ) EXPLAINING the purpose of the provision their Lordship have observed that by providing simple speedy but limited relief, the provision relating to maintenance seeks to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared, and destituted on the scrap-head of the society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The social purpose for granting such maintenance is to prevent vagrancy. It is legitimate, therefore, to award maintenance in a deserving case like the present one from the date of application i. e. , amount of litigation so that the wife is enabled to repay the financial obligation which she is compelled to take nice scarily for her sustenance during the period of litigation. ( 15 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the allowance of maintenance awarded by the Courts below from the date of application for maintenance appears to be justified and calls for no interference. ( 16 ) IN the result, this revision succeeds and the allowed and the Misc. Criminal Case No. 1418/86 (Shivram v. Gangabai), filed by the husband is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .