M. S. A. Siddiqui,j. ( 1 ) THIS petition, being one under Section 482, Cr. PC. , is directed aginst the order dated 8. 9. 1998 passed by Shri S. K. Kaushik, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 121/1997, whereby the order dated 23. 9. 1997 passed by Ms. Santosh Sneh Mann, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi incase No 99/1994 was modified. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY speaking, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against the respondent for grant of interim maintenance. By the order dated 23. 9. 1997, the learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 400. 00 per month from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent moved the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a revision petition. By the impugned order, the learned Additiona Sessions Judge modified the order dated 23. 9. 1997 passed by the learned Magistrate directing payment of maintenance from the date when the amended petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was brought on record i. e. with effect from 19. 5. 1995. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C ( 3 ) THE question arises as to from which date the petitioners would be entitled to claim the maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. The provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute complete Code in itself. These provisions deal with adjudication as regards the liability to pay maintenance to the neglected wife and child, etc. , the execution of the order and the mode of its execution, Ordinarily, the right to claim maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. of the Code fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition as the scheme of the provisions embodied in the said section is only intended for the enforcement of a duty a default in which may lead to vagrancy It is not always that the Court has to grant maintenance from that date under Sub-section (2) to Section 125 of the Code, the Court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 125 of the Code should be granted. The Court can award maintenance under Section 125 of the Code either from the date of application or from the date of order taking into consideration conduct of the parties in the proceedings averments made in the application and the reply thereto, hardship that may be causes to husband and the like. In the instant rase, the learned Magistrate has exercised the discretion under Sub-section (2) of Section l25 of the Code by awarding maintenance to the petitioners from the date of the petition. By the impugned order, the learne Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned Magistrate by directin payment of maintenance from the date when the amended petition under Section 125 of the Code was brought on record. ( 4 ) IT appears that the petition under Section 125 of the Code was allowed to be amended into one based on the original cause of action. That being so, the amendment would relate back to the date of the presentation of the original petition. The fact that the petition was amended by the petitioners cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of maintenance from the date of the petition. Normally, the jurisdiction of the Code under Section 397 of the Code is to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. There is nothing on record to show that in granting maintenance from the date of the application, the learned Magistrate has exercised her discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has misdirected himself in substituting his own discretion in the place of discretion of the learned Magistrate. Thus, there is a manifest error on a point of law in the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the teamed Additional Sessions Judge is set aside.