K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition is under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 29/2/1988 passed by Shri Shambhu Singh, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Criminal Revision No. 204 of 1987 granting maintenance to the non-applicants under section 125 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the non-applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and the non- applicant No. 2 Kumari Deepali is the legal daughter of the applicant and the non-applicant No. 1. ( 3 ) THE trial Court had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250. 00 per month to each of the non- applicants but the lower revisional Court has reduced the maintenance amount on the revision of the applicant, to Rs. 125/- per month from the date of application i. e. 7. 2. 1985. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per Agreement (Ex. D-1), the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately of her own accord and she is not entitled to any maintenance. Moreover, the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. was moved after the period of 13 years as such she is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on Doman Singh v. Godawari Bai. The other submission of the learned counsel is that in case the amount of maintenance is awarded from the date of application, reason should be recorded, but in the present case no reasons are recorded. For this proposition, he has relied on the cases of Lachhmani v. Ramu, Mohd. Inayatulla Khan v. Smt. Salma Bano and also Galoor Ahmad v. Amnabai. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicants vehemently opposes the submissions and supports the orders passed by the Courts below. He has relied on the cases of Paramjit Kaur v. Surinder Singh, Smt. Jhalli Bai v. Dayaram Ahur, Gangabai v. Shivram and Krishna lain (Smt.) v. Vharam Raj lain. ( 6 ) SO far as the point of living separate by mutual consent is concerned, the Courts below have considered the document Ex. D-1 and have come to the finding that document Ex. D-1. does not show that the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately of her own accord. I have also gone through Ex. ( 6 ) SO far as the point of living separate by mutual consent is concerned, the Courts below have considered the document Ex. D-1 and have come to the finding that document Ex. D-1. does not show that the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately of her own accord. I have also gone through Ex. D-1 which does not show that the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately of her own accord. On the contrary, it goes to show that the non-applicant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and she is dumb. She is forced to live separately because of the cruel treatment given to her by the applicant, who has taken up another wife, named, Anusaiya Bai, the parties entered into an agreement. By this agreement, the applicant agreed to pay maintenance to both the non- applicants and now he is failing in his own words. Even otherwise since the applicant has taken another wife, there is every Justification for the non-applicants to live separate. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that the non-applicants arc living separately of their own accord. ( 7 ) SO far as the point of delay is concerned, Ex. D. 1 was executed by the applicant on 29th May, 1980. The application under section 125 Cr. P. C. was filed in February, 1985. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing such application. The applicant had paid-maintenance to the non- applicants till December, 1984. He stopped payment of maintenance thereafter. The application for maintenance filed on 7. 2. 1985 cannot at all be said to be a delayed application. There is thus no merit in such argument of the applicant. It seems that the learned counsel for the applicant has neither seen the Agreement Ex. Dl nor the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. He has also not gone through the statement of A. W. 1 Vachla (mother of non-applicant No. 1 ). ( 8 ) AFTER going through the Agreement Ex. Dl, the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. and the statements on record, the only thing emerges into is that the applicant has taken up another wife viz. P. C. He has also not gone through the statement of A. W. 1 Vachla (mother of non-applicant No. 1 ). ( 8 ) AFTER going through the Agreement Ex. Dl, the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. and the statements on record, the only thing emerges into is that the applicant has taken up another wife viz. , Anusaiya Bai The non-applicants are living separately because of the cruel treatment given to them by the applicant and the applicant failed to pay the maintenance to the non-applicants from 1985. The application for maintenance filed on 7th February, 1985 is well within time. ( 9 ) THE only point now remains to be decided is as to whether the lower revisional Court was right in granting maintenance to the non-applicants from the date of the application. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the maintenance should have been given from the date of order. I see no merit in this submission also. Sub-section (2) of section 125 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. That discretion is given to the trial Magistrate to pass the order of maintenance from the date which he deems fit. It is not obligatory for the Court to give reason why the maintenance is ordered to be paid from the date of the application or of the order as the case may be. The only limitation is that such payment cannot be ordered before the date of application. The fact that after getting the another wife the applicant had given cruel treatment to his first wife. The lower revisional Courts order granting the maintenance not from the date of order but from the date of application cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal. I see no reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the lower revisional Court. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .