JUDGMENT M.W. Deo, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of the revisional Court upholding the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court under Section 125 Ibid. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the respondent was wedded to the petitioner at a very -tender age. After a short stay, she was deserted and was forced to live with her parents for almost 12 years. In the meanwhile the petitioner is alleged to have taken another wife. It is alleged that he drove away the second wife and then brought back the first one namely the respondent. The respondent conceived from the husband but it resulted in abortion. This happened in 1986. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner then again treated respondent with cruelty and neglected to maintain her resulting in her compulsory departure to her parents. 4. It is on these facts that the learned trial Court ordered grant of maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month to the respondent from the date of petition i.e. 3.3.1986. 5. The revisional Court not withstanding the narrow campass of the revisional jurisdiction, has considered all the pros and cons of the matter on record and has written a speaking order maintaining the decision of the trial Court. 6. In this Court the learned counsel for the husband petitioner firstly contended that because the respondent belongs to Patidar Samaj of which the ladies are used to work, therefore she should be presumed to be a person who can maintain herself. For one on such presumption can be drawn and for another, the trial Court after recording evidence has given a judicial finding that she is unable to maintain herself. 7. It was next argued that the wife did not specifically plead in the petition that she was unable to maintain herself and, therefore, maintenance should not have been granted. It is well-settled, that the rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. though they arc in the nature of quasi-civil proceedings. 8. It was then argued that there was inordinate delay on the part of the wife to move for grant of relief of maintenance and that should be fatal. It is well-settled, that the rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. though they arc in the nature of quasi-civil proceedings. 8. It was then argued that there was inordinate delay on the part of the wife to move for grant of relief of maintenance and that should be fatal. The point has been considered by the learned revisional Court and it has rightly found that the non-claiming of maintenance for the first leg of abandonment by the husband for 12 years is of no consequence for the simple reason that the husband brought back the wife after 12 years and she lived with him and even conceived. That being so, if the wife makes a grievance of neglect by the husband after this period of sojourn, she cannot be said to be guilty of delay much less of such delay as may be fatal to her prayer for maintenance. 9. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of payment of maintenance from the date of petition is very harsh. It is settled law that the Court can grant maintenance from the date of petition instead of granting it from the date of order. But then exercise of such discretion should be supported by good reasons. In the present case no good reasons are shown for exercise of such discretion. All the same this Court should not normally interfere in the discretionary relief granted by the two Courts below. Yet as a measure of an attempt to softening down the order, it is deemed just to modify the orders passed by the Courts below. It is, therefore, directed that in case the petitioner husband pays all the maintenance from the date of order i.e. 7.8.1987 and continues to pay maitenance, within three months from the date of this order, he shall be absolved of paying maintenance from the period from the date of application i.e. 3.3.1986 till the date of order i.e. 7.8.1987. If the petitioner fails to pay this amount within the aforesaid period of three months, shall be liable to pay maintenance as ordered from the date of application 3.3.1986. 10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.