JUDGMENT After perusal of the record of Cr. M.J.C. No. 1/81 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Pendra Road, district Bilaspur, it is clear that in the application filed by the applicant u/s 125 Cr.P.C. there was no mention that from what date the maintenance was to be awarded. It was, therefore, not in issue before the lower Court that as to from what date the maintenance allowance was to be awarded. The application for grant of maintenance was filed on behalf of the applicant Smt Shanti Bai on 4.5.1979 and ultimately after a long lapse of time the order granting maintenance to the applicant Smt. Shanti Bai was passed on 12.1.1987 and probably keeping this in mind the lower Court had awarded maintenance to the applicant from the date of application i.e. 4.5.79 although no reason was given in the said order for awarding the maintenance from the date of application. It is no doubt true that reasons should be recorded in the order even if the allowance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is made payable from the date of application or from the date of the order. However, in the absence of recording reasons, it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order as has been laid down in 1991 JLJ 405 . It appears that the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 35/87 had ordered that the applicant Smt. Shanti Bai who was non-applicant in the revision petition was entitled to maintenance from the date of order i.e. 12.1.87 and not from the date of application i.e. 4.5.1979, for the only reason that in the order passed by J.M.F.C. Pendra Road, reasons had not been assigned for awarding the maintenance from the date of application. In my view the approach of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, does not appear to be correct because simply for the absence of reasons given in the order for awarding the maintenance from the date of application it would not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order. The Revisional Court is obliged to scan the evidence on record to satisfy itself and supply the reasons in support of the Magistrate's order and the order impugned may not call for any interference. The Revisional Court has failed in this regard. The Revisional Court is obliged to scan the evidence on record to satisfy itself and supply the reasons in support of the Magistrate's order and the order impugned may not call for any interference. The Revisional Court has failed in this regard. For the aforesaid reasons I am inclined to allow the revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant Smt. Shanti Bai. The revision petition filed on behalf of Smt. Shanti Bai is allowed and the order dated 1.4.1988 passed in Criminal Revision No. 35/87 by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is set aside and the order dated 12.1.1987 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1/81 by the J.M.F.C., Pendra Road, district Bilaspur awarding maintenance amount of Rs. 100/- per month from the date of application i.e. 4.5.1979 is restored.