JUDGMENT Arguments heard. Records of both the Courts below also perused. The non-applicant No. 1 successfully challenged in Criminal Revision No. 69/99 before Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, the order dated 30th March, 1999, passed by CJM, Chhindwara, in M.Cr.C. No. 88/96 registered on the application moved on behalf of non-applicants u/s 125 of the CrPC wherein the non-applicants were refused their claim for maintenance. The learned Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, granted maintenance to non-applicant No.1 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and to each of the non-applicants No.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, since the date of filing the petition in the lower Court, i.e., 10th January, 1996. Now the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th July, 2001, passed by Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 69/99. Since a remedy in revision' was available to this petitioner, I allow this request of Shri Lalwani that this petition u/s 482, CrPC be treated as revision. After hearing arguments at length, now Shri Lalwani takes a turn and makes a submission that the roster will have to be changed because the revisions are not listed in this Court. Since on the request of Shri Lalwani, the petition is being treated as a revision, therefore, the aforesaid objection is turned down. It is submitted by Shri Lalwani that the remedy u/s 125 of the CrPC is a speedy. remedy to save the petitioner from vagarancy and no such statement is found either pleaded or proved on behalf of the non-applicants and hence this remedy was not available by them. It is also submitted by Shri Lalwani that inspite of lapse of over four years, the non-applicants are still surviving and so also it is clear that it was not a case of emergency requiring grant of speedy remedy. On the similar arguments, it -is also submitted by Shri Lalwani that non-applicant No.1 Sunita Rai is capable of maintaining herself and so also the maintenance could not have been granted to her. It is further submitted by Shri Lalwani that minors who are daughters, i.e., non-applicants No.2 and 3 are not turned out by this petitioner, who is deprived by their love and affection, therefore, by taking these minors with her, non- applicant Sunita Bai is not competent to claim maintenance for them. It is further submitted by Shri Lalwani that minors who are daughters, i.e., non-applicants No.2 and 3 are not turned out by this petitioner, who is deprived by their love and affection, therefore, by taking these minors with her, non- applicant Sunita Bai is not competent to claim maintenance for them. Beginning with the last argument, the mother being the natural guardian, is entitled to keep into her custody the minor daughters, upto the age of 12 years and therefore Sunita the non-applicant No.1 was quite competent to take both of her minor daughters aged 5 years with her and then claim maintenance for them from this petitioner. There is found dictated in the petition filed in the lower Court u/s 125, CrPC, that after the non-applicant No.1, being driven away by the petitioner, she is residing with her parents in a very poor financial condition, having no assistance for maintenance from the petitioner. Further, it is found stated by non-applicant No.1 Sunita in Court that she has no independent source of income and is being maintained along with her minor daughters, by her father only, who is an ordinary village tailor. It has to be borne in mind that the aforesaid statement of Sunita, which is found supported by Majloob Singh (PW 2), is unrebutted as this petitioner did not appear in lower Court where the case proceeded ex-parte and hence the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is found to have committed no mistake in fully accepting her statement recorded in the lower Court. Since the learned Third Add\. Sessions Judge is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in recording its conclusion for grant of maintenance to the non-applicants. I find no substance in revision, so far as the date from which the amount of maintenance is ordered to be payable, the revisional Court, was fully competent to exercise its discretion in grant of maintenance since the date of submission of application, as provided u/s 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence on that ground also, no interference is required. This petition is thus disallowed and rejected in toto.