S. C JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 26-4-1994 passed by Sri S. C. Tiwari, Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 152 of 1992, Smt. Anjali alias Rekha v. Vijai Kumar Agrawal) awarding a maintenance of Rs. 300 per month to the wife, Smt. Anjali alias Rekha. 2. Smt. Anjali alias Rekha Agrawal, being a legally wedded wife of the applicant, Vijai Kumar Agrawal, the applicant herein, filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance alleging therein that she has no independent source of income for her maintenance and she has been neglect ed by the husband and she is not being maintained by him. It has also been alleged that from the first date of marriage she found her husband to be impo tent and was not capable of performing her marital obligations. That applica tion was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. 3. After appreciating the submissions made by the parties learned counsel and on the basis of the materials available on record the Judge, Family Court Kanpur Nagar awarded Rs. 300 per month as maintenance to the wife by his order dated 26-4-1994. 4. Feeling aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the husband before this Court. 5. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction to entertain that petition to award maintenance. The residence of the wife being a student at Kanpur was only temporary and, therefore, this fact could not give jurisdic tion to the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar. 6. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant to that the factum of impotency has not yet been established inasmuch as a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of impotency filed by the wife is still pending for disposal and unless and until it is so held, he cannot be termed as impotent. According to the learned counsel (of the applicant though he has not opposed passing of the decree of nullity in the petition by him. 7. The third submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is excessive and that it should not be allowed from the date of application. According to the learned counsel (of the applicant though he has not opposed passing of the decree of nullity in the petition by him. 7. The third submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is excessive and that it should not be allowed from the date of application. g As far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned, it is not disputed that the petition can be filed at a place where either the wife or the husband has been residing or last resided. In this case there is no dispute about the fact that Smt Aniali Agrawal, the wife, was living at Kanpur at the time when this petition was filed by her. Her stay at Kanpur for M. A. course cannot he said to be a casual visit. The jurisdiction assumed by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, therefore, cannot by said to be illegal in the present circums tances of the case. 9 Regarding the other contention that she is not justified in living separate as the allegation of impotency has not yet been proved, I may say that it has also no force. It has been laid down by this Gout in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge reported in 1991 U. P. CR 359 that a was 8 Justified living separate from her husband if she finds that her husband is impotent. She can claim maintenance by living separate in such circumstances. It is for the competent court before whom the petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of impotency is pending to declare the husband as impotent, but if the wife finds husband as impotent she is justified in living separate on that account. In this case the husband has not contested the petition for nullity of marriage filed by the wife on the ground of impotency and has stated that he has no objection if the decree is passed, though he has Herded the factum of impotency. In such circumstances living separate cannot be said to be unjustified. The wife can claim maintenance by living separate on this account. 10 Regarding the quantum of maintenance from the date of applicant on the learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion on the basis of affidavit that income of the husband was at that time Rs. In such circumstances living separate cannot be said to be unjustified. The wife can claim maintenance by living separate on this account. 10 Regarding the quantum of maintenance from the date of applicant on the learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion on the basis of affidavit that income of the husband was at that time Rs. 1000 per month and in these circumstances a sum of Rs. 300 was awarded as maintenance. The visional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on this point which I find that the Judge, Family Court has not committed any error in arriving at this conclusion. 11 Regarding the date of grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC it can be granted either from the date of application or from the date under In a recent judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1362 Basant Lal v. The State of U. P. and another given by Honble Mr Justice K. L. Sharma on 8-2- 1995, [since reported in 1995 JIG 419 (All ). has been held that as a general rule wife who has got no independent once of income and has been neglected by her husband, she becomes entitled to get maintenance from the date when she applied for the same. 12 In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in this revision within and I also find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 1, therefore, decline to interfere in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .