JUDGMENT The controversy projected is very limited as to whether it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate, while passing an order u/s. 125 of IPC, to assign reasons for making the order enforceable from the date of the application and what would be the effect if no such reason is assigned. The controversy stands concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Krishna Jain v. Dharam Raj Jain ( 1991 JLJ 405 ), wherein this very question was referred for determination by the Division Bench and it was held: (i) Recording of reasons is essential in either case namely when the maintenance is granted from the date of application or from the date of order; (ii) In the absence of reasons, it does not automatically follow that the maintenance should be awarded from the date of order. In the instant case, the Magistrate made the order of maintenance enforceable from the date of the application. However, in revision, the learned Add!. Sessions Judge, modified the order and made the same enforceable from the date of the order merely on the ground that no reasons have been assigned by the Magistrate for making the order enforceable from the date of the application. No reason is assigned either by the Magistrate or by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for making the orders as aforesaid. Learned counsel for respondent has strongly supported the order of the Sessions Court below and submitted that in absence of reasons for making the order enforceable from the date of the application, the order passed by the Magistrate was liable to be set-aside. He has placed reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Shobhabai v. Radhe Shyam 1991 (II) MPWN 171. I am however, not persuaded by the argument. The decision in Smt. Krishna (supra) is prior in time and is not referred in the subsequent decision of Shobhabai (supra). Even otherwise in Slwbhabai (supra), it is not held that absence of reasons would vitiate the order. In my considered opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, ought not to have interfered with the order of the Magistrate without assigning any proper reason therefor. The order of the Magistrate was not vitiated merely because no reasons for making the same enforceable from the date of the application, were assigned. In my considered opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, ought not to have interfered with the order of the Magistrate without assigning any proper reason therefor. The order of the Magistrate was not vitiated merely because no reasons for making the same enforceable from the date of the application, were assigned. This revision thus succeeds and is allowed and the order passed in revision by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kannod is set-aside and that of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khategaon is restored.