JUDGMENT U.L. Bhatt, C.J. 1. Revision-petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and her child. The application was opposed by the respondent. The learned Magistrate ordered him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for the wife and Rs. 100/- per month to the child, with effect from the date of the application in 1982. In revision filed by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge directed maintenance to be paid from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate, namely, 30.8.1989. This order is now challenged. 2. It has to be pointed out that neither of the Courts below gave any rational reason in support of its respective directions. It is, therefore, for this Court to examine the record to see whether it should interfere or not, see Saroj Bai v. Jai Kumar, ( 1994 JLJ 725 (Full Bench). 3. This is a case where the wife and the child in distress and neglected by the respondent who was responsible for their maintenance, approached the Magistrate for relief. For one reason or the other, the matter dragged on for about 7 years. Inspite of delay, the learned Magistrate did not pass any order for interim maintenance. This is a mockery of the legislative intention to provide a summary, quick and comparatively cheap remedy. In Saroj Bai's case, the Full Bench observed:- "Where a litigation is prolonged unduly, either on account of the conduct of the Opposite Party, on account of the heavy docket in Court or for other unavoidable reasons, it would be just and contrary to the very purpose of the provision to postpone the effectuation of the order to the date of the order. Such postponement deprives the claimant of the benefit of the fruits of a decree which he or she could have obtained through a Civil Court. Looking at the matter from this perspective also, there is justification to say that ordinarily the claimant who seeks an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code shall obtain the relief from the date when she or he approached the Court i.e. the date of application and only where there are circumstances justifying a contrary view, it can be postponed to the date of the order." 4. The evidence of the wife is that the husband owns a large number of handcarts and earns substantial income. The finding is that he earns Rs. 600/- per month from hand-carts and Rs. 160/- per month as house rent. It is nobody's contention that the wife was responsible for prolongation of the case before the learned Magistrate. Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances and in the absence of any reason to justify postponment of the effectuation of the order, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious illegality in varying the order of the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is restored. Revision Petition is disposed of.