Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 inspire of service of notice. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 5.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Revision No. 317 of 2004 thereby and thereunder the order dated 21.7.2004 passed by Sri R. Malviya. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in case no. 21M of 1989, Tr. No. 963 of 2004 is hereby affirmed. 2. It appears from the record that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Sec. 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of her maintenance amount. The same was enhanced from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of application. Against that very order the petitioner preferred a revision application which has been dismissed vide impugned order. 3. In course of the hearing the only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned lower court has ordered the enhancement of the maintenance amount from the date of the application where is should be from the date of the order. The learned counsel for the State also concedes that there is no specific provision under Sec. 127 of the Cr.P.C. that the enhanced maintenance amount shall be ordered to be paid from the date of the application. 4. It appears from the record that earlier the Opposite Party no. 2 was getting maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month only and now the maintenance amount has substantially been enhanced to Rs. 150/- per month. I view of the without entering into the merit of the case, this revision is disposed of with the modification in the date of payment of the enhanced maintenance amount. The Opposite Party No. 2 shall be entitled to get enhanced maintenance amount from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. 5. With this observation, this application is disposed of.