JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against an order dated 4.10.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur in Case No. 356/95 (Old No. 147/ 90) and Case No. 132/95 (Old No. 4/90) whereby the learned Judge, Family Court disposed of not only an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce preferred by the present appellant against her husband-respondent but also disposed of an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and granted an amount of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the minor children as maintenance effective from the date of the impugned order. 2. The grievance of the present appellant Smt. Padmja Sharma is that even though the appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites on 2.5.1982 at Jaipur and two sons were born to them named Manu alias Abhijit Sharma and Anu alias Atul Sharma, born respectively on 27.1.1984 and 28.6.1985, she was perforce compelled because of the inhuman cruelty perpetuated to her, to seek divorce. 3. It would be unnecessary for us, at the present stage, to discuss the averments made in the matrimonial suit and the findings as arrived at by the learned Judge, Family Court while granting a decree of divorce. 4. The appellant made an application on 21.5.1990 for the dissolution of marriage with a prayer for return of her Stridhan and also prayed for guardianship, custody and maintenance of her two minor sons who were neglected and refused to be maintained by the husband-respondent. It would be absolutely unnecessary for us to discuss in the present context how the respondent husband sought to adjourn the hearing of the case by moving frivolous applications before the Court and stalled his ultimate liability to pay maintenance to the two children who are both school going boys studying in decent educational institutions. The mother of the children i.e. the appellant herself is a College Lecturer in the adjoining District of Tonk and since she is a working girl, she is not entitled to maintenance of her own and she has not prayed such maintenance for her own. 5. It has been submitted before us by the respondent who appeared in person alongwith his learned Advocate Mr. Alok Sharma that the mother being a working girl earns for her livelihood to the extent of about Rs. 5. It has been submitted before us by the respondent who appeared in person alongwith his learned Advocate Mr. Alok Sharma that the mother being a working girl earns for her livelihood to the extent of about Rs. 8,000/- per month and she has a house of her own given by her father, who is an eminent Advocate of this Court and in that particular perspective, she needs no money for the maintenance and education of the two children Abhijit and Atul. 6. Smt. Padmja Sharma, appellant and Mr. R.L. Sharma, respondent, are present in person. Mr. Alok Sharma, Counsel for the respondent, submitted before us a decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 7 : II (1997) DMC 338 (SC) , for the proposition that it is always a matter of discretion for the Court as to from which date the order of maintenance pendente lite to the wife and children is to be paid. In the facts and circumstances of the said case it was paid effective from the date of impugned order of the High Court. Mr. Sharma submitted before us that there is no such hard and fast rule that it should always be paid from the date of application. Mr. Sharma further drew our attention to a case of S. Jaya Laxmi v. T. Pmkash Rao, (1996) 8 SCC 501 , for the proposition that the age of children is one of the relevant considerations for awarding of the maintenance to them. In the facts of the said case, however, where the husband remarried, with regard to two daughters born out of the first marriage, the Supreme Court fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for each daughter effective from 1.1.1995 and directed further the father of the children to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each in the name of daughters separately in fixed deposit account for two years alongwith a further sum of Rs. one lakh to be paid on the occasion of marriage of each of such daughters. Mr. Sharma further submitted before us that the status of the father of children as also the consideration of other dependents, are also relevant considerations for the purpose. Mr. one lakh to be paid on the occasion of marriage of each of such daughters. Mr. Sharma further submitted before us that the status of the father of children as also the consideration of other dependents, are also relevant considerations for the purpose. Mr. Joshi, Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted before us by citing a decision in Saroj Bai v. Jai Kumar Jain, (1995) 1 HLR 6 , which is a Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, that reasons are required to be given whether the Court stipulates the date of the application or the date of the order, as the date from which the maintenance allowance is to be paid. However, failure to state reasons will not vitiate the order and absence of reasons is an irregularity. The higher Court is not ordinarily expected to reappreciate the evidence. It has to examine the record to verify whether the order is correct or legal or proper and to decide the matter accordingly. Mr. Joshi further cited before us a decision of the Supreme Court in Sneh Prabha (Smt.) v. Ravinder Kumar, (1996) 1 HLR 280 , where a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court observed that in a case where divorce was granted and the mother was only a teacher and the daughters were living with the mother, the husband should pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to his wife for maintaining the two daughters which amount should be paid till they are in a position to earn their livelihood and the girls should approach the District Judge for further financial assistance from their father at the time of their marriage and the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance should be the first charge on the property owned by the father of the children. 7. We are constrained to hold, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that it is an incumbent liability on the part of the father to bear the cost of education and the maintenance expenses for the two children Abhijit and Atul. Rs. 500/- to each of the children as awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court is too meagre in the present days. We are told that the education expenses for each of the children amounts to Rs. 1,500/- per month, in the present context. Rs. 500/- to each of the children as awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court is too meagre in the present days. We are told that the education expenses for each of the children amounts to Rs. 1,500/- per month, in the present context. The husband respondent is admittedly employed in a responsible position in the Reserve Bank of India where his gross pay packet amounts to Rs. 13,000/- per month. Even though he has taken loan from the Bank and is suffering deductions on that score from his monthly pay packet, we would be constrained to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the two children effective from the date of the order dated 4.10.1997 is liable to be modified to this extent only that the amount should be at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month per child effective not only from the date of the order, but from the date of application it would be at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The respondent, however, will be entited to pay off the arrears on adjustment of the amounts already paid by him at instalments of Rs. 500/- per month. 8. With regard to the other claims as raised by the present appellant regarding the return of her Stridhan and other belongings, we have gone through the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court with proper retrospection and just because we can take a different perspective in the appreciation of evidence, on this score we do not want to disturb the findings as made by the learned Judge, Family Court. 9. As regards the application for custody of the children, the husband- respondent would be entitled to file a proper application before the learned Judge, Family Court for having access to the children in the house of their maternal grand father Shri R.N. Surolia or at some other convenient place for one day every week, preferably on a Sunday, where the father would be able to meet the children so as to establish repport with the children. Proper application in this regard, if made before the learned Judge, Family Court, would be entertained by the learned Judge, Family Court on its own merits, upon which proper directions are to be passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, in the fitness of things. 10. Proper application in this regard, if made before the learned Judge, Family Court, would be entertained by the learned Judge, Family Court on its own merits, upon which proper directions are to be passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, in the fitness of things. 10. With these observations, we dispose of the present appeal, though without any order as to costs.Appeal disposed of. *******