JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This is an application by the wife and two minor daughters, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming twin reliefs of (a) enhancement in the quantum of maintenance allowance and, (b) partial reversal of revisional order 10 as to make the allowance payable from the date of application (21-7-86) instead of order (5-1-90). However, this petition was admitted on the limited point of the date only as is , luclent by order dated 30-7-91 and in view of this position, the question as regards the enhancement stands foreclosed. 2. Factual matrix is rather jejune. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p m. on the ground of cruelty and contract of marriage with another woman bearing name as Munnibai. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar in MJC No. 25/88 ordered on 5-1-90 the non-applicant husband, to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs 100/- for each of the three applicants, thus, total Rs. 300/-, from 21-7-86, the date of application. On a revision being filed by the non-applicant against the aforesaid order, the IVth Add). Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Cri. Revision No 33/90 ordered on 1-5-1991 that the allowance, granted by the Court below shall be payable from the date of the order, The Criminal Revision No. 50/90 preferred by the applicants had, however, proved to be vainful as it wax dismissed by the composite order rendered in both these revisions. The question falling for consideration in this Court thus, is whether the revisional Court was justified in modifying the order as above. 3. Parties are heard. Record is perused. 4. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. envisages a swift and cheap remedy and is intended to serve a social purpose. It is in accord with Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India which are indicators of an urge to protect the. weaker sections like women and children. In fact the constitutional sweep becomes still wider when Article 51A, inserted by 42nd amendment effective from 3-1-77, imposed a duty on all citizens to renounce practice derogatory to the dignity of women. The neglect or refusal to maintain, to my mind, is a direct onslaught on the dignity and needs to be anaesthetized. weaker sections like women and children. In fact the constitutional sweep becomes still wider when Article 51A, inserted by 42nd amendment effective from 3-1-77, imposed a duty on all citizens to renounce practice derogatory to the dignity of women. The neglect or refusal to maintain, to my mind, is a direct onslaught on the dignity and needs to be anaesthetized. The obvious object is to compel the erring husband to perform his duty and discharge his normal obligation towards wife and children. 5. Cruelty has its crude manifestations in ways, prodigious in number. A woman cannot be left in the lurch by her man and children, who are supposed to be national wealth, cannot be consigned to suffer destitution. The proclaimed object is to prevent vagrancy. In 1991 WN (1) 241 (K. Vimla v. K. Veeraswamy) it is succinctly Said down that- "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food clothing and shelter to the deserted wife." x x x 6. If there is no escape from the liability as noted above, the question that inevitably springs into action is as to from which date it is to be fastened. Section 125(2) provides as under-- "Such allowance shall be payable from the date of order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance," 7. There is thus, no tenebrosity about the jurisdictional competence of the Court in the face of the aforesaid provision. The trial Court on evaluation of all facts and circumstances, had ordered that it would be payable from the date of application. The revisional Court, however, laconically dislodged this on the linchpin of absence of indication of reasons for departure from the normal rule and made reference to two decisions of this Court reported in 1987 (II) MPWN 142 (Gafoor Ahmad v. Amnabai) and 1983 MPWN 148 (Lachhmam v. Ramu) in support of the aforesaid view. 8. The revisional Court, however, did not hold that no reasons existed In fact the emphasis was more on non-listing of reasons rather than absence of reasons. The Chart of progress of the case in the Court below was as under:- 21-7-86 Application filed. 10-12-87 Reply filed. 16-6-88 Part evidence adduced. 1-7-88 Evidence closed 19-8-88 Part evidence adduced. 8. The revisional Court, however, did not hold that no reasons existed In fact the emphasis was more on non-listing of reasons rather than absence of reasons. The Chart of progress of the case in the Court below was as under:- 21-7-86 Application filed. 10-12-87 Reply filed. 16-6-88 Part evidence adduced. 1-7-88 Evidence closed 19-8-88 Part evidence adduced. 9-1-89 Application for interim maintenance filed. 31-1-89 Application rejected on assumption of early prospects of disposal of the case. 9-2-89 Caused delay. 24-2-89 Caused delay. 4-4-89 Evidence closed, but application filed. 10-4-89 Search warrant at the request of husband. 4-1-90 Evidence closed, It is thus, clear that the non-applicant caused hinderence in expeditious disposal of the case and opposed the prayer for interim maintenance as well. 9. It was also overlooked that the non-applicant had intrepidly abondoned his woeful wife and minor children and had kept the mistress. It was essential to lift the lambrequin. This was to be done. And this could have been achieved even by referring to the reply filed to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The stage is now set where the relevant pericope may atonce be adverted to- (1) The wife left the matrimonial home in December, 1979 (para 2). (2) The relationship was terminated on 26-1-80 (para 3). (3) The wife has contracted Natra marriage with the son of Soma (para 4). (4) The children should be given to the father (para 5). (5) The applicant is not liable to maintain (para 6). 10. The reply demonstrates that the non-applicant refused to maintain the applicants and that no offer as such was sincerely made. On the other hand, the tone of reply indicated the flatulence and assassinated the character as well. Nothing had prevented the non-applicant from initiating appropriate steps to claim custody of the children. But the arrival of another woman in life teems to be the root cause of the impeachable conduct. 11. It cannot be gainsaid that mere nonchalance, neglect or refusal to maintain the dependents should be taken as furnishing valid ground and cogent reasons to award the allowance from the date of application. The reply in general and charge of infidelity by one keeping the mistress, in particular are evident points of neglect and refusal. 11. It cannot be gainsaid that mere nonchalance, neglect or refusal to maintain the dependents should be taken as furnishing valid ground and cogent reasons to award the allowance from the date of application. The reply in general and charge of infidelity by one keeping the mistress, in particular are evident points of neglect and refusal. In 1991 (I) MPWN 192 (Jagdish Prasad v. Amarnath), it is held that- "It was thereafter submitted that the learned Magistrate made mistake in awarding compensation from the date of application. According to the learned Counsel awarding compensation from the date of the order is the rule and from the date of application an exception. It is, therefore, submitted that, in this case, the learned Magistrate wanted to follow the exception rather than the rule, he should haw given reasons for the same. Indeed, every judicial order is required to be reasoned order and hence there should be no difficulty in accepting the submission. But, it is not possible to accept that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate held as a matter of fact, that the applicant has refused to maintain the non-applicant and has, therefore, held the non-applicant entitled to maintenance. This itself is the reason for awarding compensation. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not create a right to receive maintenance; it only provides a forum for enforcing the right already vested. Under the circumstances reasoning that the applicant unjustifiably refused to maintain the non-applicant would be valid reason for awarding maintenance from the date of application." XX XX XX 12. The order of the revisional Court to this extent seems to be subvertible as it is not in accord with special facts and circumstances of the case on hand and it has gone wrong in placing reliance oh the authorities, as noted above, despite the same being clearly distinguishable on facts. 13. There is thus, no nodus in the case. After all, law is the means, justice the end. There has to be harmony, not antinomy, between law and justice. In the scheme of justice-delivery system, law must be seen in action and on talking terms with the justice. 13. There is thus, no nodus in the case. After all, law is the means, justice the end. There has to be harmony, not antinomy, between law and justice. In the scheme of justice-delivery system, law must be seen in action and on talking terms with the justice. The revisional Court was thus not justified in altering the order to run from its date-without even realising that the proceedings, intended to be swift and summary in nature, claimed for its conclusion about three and a half years, as detailed above, and that the prayer for even interim maintenance was disallowed Ex voto on oppugnation as back as on 31-1-89 permitting hibernation of the case for about one year even thereafter. The prayer made in the petition before me is thug, found to be holy, not hollow and I must reject the-opposition. The law, when in action, must see that any one, proved to be wronged, does not lose hope and gets one's due early and essentially. In Jennison v. Backer, 1972 (C) All. E.R. 897, it is stated that- "The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope." 14. In the ultimate analysis, it is held that the interference under inherent powers, designed to incinerate injustices, is necessary and an appropriate order is required to be made to secure the ends of justice. It is apt for doing justice Tout-a-fait. In this view of the matter, modification about operation of date, ai done by the revisional Court, deserves to be quashed and consequently the direction as contained in the order of the lower Court merits restoration. 15. Accordingly, the modification is set aside and it is directed that the non-applicant shall pay the allowance of maintenance from 21-7-86, the date of application, as was directed in the original order, in terms of Section 125(2) of the Cr.P.C. 16. In sum, the petition stands allowed, in terms indicated above with further direction that the non-applicant shall pay the costs of this petition, quantified at Rs. 500/- to the applicants. 17. The records of the Courts below shall be sent back promptly.