Judgment :- 1. etitioner is the wife of respondent. She initiated proceedings u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance. Learned Magistrate by order dated 19-11-1983 allowed her application and directed respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. Respondent challenged that order before the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge set aside that order and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. Therupon the learned Magistrate by order dated 19-12-1985 dismissed the petitioner's application for maintenance. Petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Court. That court concurred with the decision of the trial court. There-upon she moved this court by filing Crl M.C. 720/87. By order dated 28-10-1988 this court set aside the order passed by the Learned Sessions judge and remanded the case to him for fresh disposal. By order dated 7-3-1989 the learned judge found the petitioner to be entitled to separate maintenance from respondent. Accordingly he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.75/- per month to the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge further directed the order to be effective from the date of order, viz., 7-3-1989. Petitioner challenges the quantum fixed by the learned judge and also the direction that the order is to be effective from 7-3-1989. 2. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge awarding maintenance to the petitioner was challenged before this court by respondent in Criminal R.P. 522/89. This court by order dated 10-8-1989 dismissed that Revision Petition and confirmed the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 3. First argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below is too meagre. Petitioner's status as legally wedded wife of the respondent is not in dispute. Children born out of that wedlock are with respondent. Petitioner has been found incapable of maintaining herself. So, according to counsel, the learned judge should have directed respondent to pay substantial amounts sufficient for her sustenance. In the nature of this case, I am not inclined to accept this argument advanced by the learned counsel. Respondent is suffering from pulmonary Tuberculosis. He has to meet his medical expenses from his meagre income. He has to maintain his two children born to the petitioner as well. In the nature of this case, I am not inclined to accept this argument advanced by the learned counsel. Respondent is suffering from pulmonary Tuberculosis. He has to meet his medical expenses from his meagre income. He has to maintain his two children born to the petitioner as well. After meeting the above expenses, the respondent will not be in a position to pay anything more than Rs.75/- to the petitioner per month by way of maintenance. Therefore, I find it difficult to interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Sessions Court. While allowing the petitioner's claim for maintenance, learned Sessions Judge directed the amount to be paid from the date of his order, viz., 7-3-1989. According to counsel, this direction has caused very great hard-ship to the petitioner and the learned judge ought to have granted maintenance from the date of petition, viz., 14-7-1982. From clause (2) of S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is seen that the court while granting maintenance can order the same to be payable from the date of the order or from the date of application for maintenance. Ordinarily an order granting maintenance is to be operative from the date of order. But the court can, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the financial capacity of the parties to the petition, direct payment to be effective from the date of application for maintenance as well. For the order to be operative from the date of application, there must be specific direction to that effect. That direction can be given only by proper exercise of judicial discretion. It must be on an appreciation of the overall situation in which the parties are placed. Ordinarily the allowance shall be payable from the date of the order. "Date of the order" can only mean the date of the order by which maintenance is granted. According to counsel, "date of the order" appearing in clause (2) of S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be understood as 'the date of the order of the trial court'. The learned counsel even went to the extent of saying that the order of the Magistrate even if it is one declining maintenance to the applicant, that date is to be treated as the date from which the order granting allowance should be made payable. This argument of Sri. The learned counsel even went to the extent of saying that the order of the Magistrate even if it is one declining maintenance to the applicant, that date is to be treated as the date from which the order granting allowance should be made payable. This argument of Sri. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel, is stated only to be rejected. "Date of the order" in clause (2) of S.125 can only mean the date of the order by which maintenance is awarded to the party. In the instant case petitioner was awarded maintenance only by the order of the Sessions Court. That order is dated 7-3-1989. Since the Sessions Court has not made the order operative from the date of application for maintenance, it can operate only from its date, viz., 7-3-1989. It cannot be projected back to 19-12-1985, the date on which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application for maintenance. 5. In view of what has been stated above, I find no substance in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.