JUDGMENT 1. Both these revisions applications are directed against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. E-343/97, by which she allowed the application of wife Smt. Sunita and Son Tanmay for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code directing husband . Rajendra to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the son, totaling to Rs.2500/- per month towards maintenance, including Rs.1250/- p.m. already granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik from the date of the order, besides the cost of Rs.1000/-. The revision application 113/2003 has been filed by the applicant . Sunita and Tanmay seeking modification of the impugned order to the effect that the maintenance should be made payable from the date of the application. Whereas criminal revision application no.132/2003 has been filed by the husband . Rajendra to challenge the order of the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur on merits claiming that the wife and son are not entitled for maintenance. Wife and son are referred to as applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 respectively while husband is referred to as Respondent, hereinafter. 2. Facts leading to the filing of these revisions may be stated thus. The marriage of applicant Sunita was solemnized with respondent Rajendra on 23.12.1993 at Nagpur as per Hindu Religion Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock applicant no.2 son Tanmay was born, now aged about 10 years. The respondent was residing at Nasik, therefore, the applicant no.1 Sunita came to reside with him at Nasik. Respondent husband is serving in Nasik Merchants Corporation Bank as Accounts Clerk. Prior to marriage applicant no.1 Sunita was serving as Teacher. She had also secured job as teacher in Rangubai Junnare English Medium School at Nasik, she was working as such till 1994. Thereafter she secured job of Teacher in Deolali Camp English Medium School Deolali. Later on the request of the applicant, respondent took a flat on rent at Devlali camp and shifted there, they lived there till April 1995. According to the applicant no.1; she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members. It is alleged that they used to abuse her in filthy language. The respondent's parents used to pressurize the wife . applicant for making her stay at Nagpur along with child. According to the applicant no.1; she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members. It is alleged that they used to abuse her in filthy language. The respondent's parents used to pressurize the wife . applicant for making her stay at Nagpur along with child. It is alleged by the applicant no.1 wife that she was not allowed to go anywhere and was being confined into the room and the respondent and his relatives were compelling her to do household work. It is further alleged by her that the elder brother and brother in law of the respondent were addicted to liquor and they used to torture the applicant -wife. 3. Therefore, according to the applicant no.1, she was compelled to stay at Nagpur. It is claimed that the applicant no.1 and 2 and the son had no source of income and the respondent is getting salary of Rs.4000/-, he also owns house and getting income by way of rent. She claimed that he has some other income from hotel business also. The applicant and son claimed maintenance of Rs.2000/- for her and Rs.1500/- p.m. for the son besides the costs of Rs.100/-. 4. The documents were filed by the applicant . wife in support of the application. Respondent . husband in the application admitted the marriage, birth of the son. According to him, the applicant wife always used to remember her parents house and her lavish living at Nagpur, she used to scold the husband his family members. She always used to boast about her parents huge property at Nagpur. It is alleged by respondent that after the naming ceremony at Nagpur of the son, the respondent and his family members were ready to fetch the wife, but she refused to come to the matrimonial home. It is contended that she has refused to return back saying that her new born baby's health was not good. It is alleged that thereafter, also she did not return. It is claimed that at the time of delivery, she had carried away all her valuables and precious ornaments. It is also alleged that after the applicant no.1 reached Nagpur, she wrote four letters to the husband alleging that his family members had stolen certain articles and making other allegations. Thereafter, the respondent had sent a legal notice through advocate. It is claimed that at the time of delivery, she had carried away all her valuables and precious ornaments. It is also alleged that after the applicant no.1 reached Nagpur, she wrote four letters to the husband alleging that his family members had stolen certain articles and making other allegations. Thereafter, the respondent had sent a legal notice through advocate. Thereafter, he filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Nasik in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik bearing HMP No.246/1996. It is the contention of the husband that the mother of the applicant runs kindergarten school in the busy locality of Nagpur her brothers and sisters are also working there. There are several allegations raised by the husband to contend that the applicant and her son are living separate at Nagpur at the sweet will of the applicant no.1. Although there were attempts including the proceedings under the Marriage Act to fetch her, they did not bear any fruit and therefore, as the applicant-wife is at fault, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties on record, the learned Judge of the Family Court Nagpur by his order dated 31.5.2003 allowed the application and directed the respondent- husband to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the son, in all Rs.2500/-. Learned Judge however awarded this maintenance amount from the date of the order. 6. Consequently the applicants . wife Sunita and son Tanmay have filed Criminal revision application no.113/2003 to challenge that order claiming that the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of the application. As against this the husband- respondent has filed criminal revision application no.132/2003 to challenge the said order on merits. 7. As these revisions applications arise out of the same order; they are disposed of by this common order. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants in Revision 113/2003 has submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court should have awarded the maintenance from the date of the application. He has supported the order of grant of maintenance on merits for the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge. He has relied on the observations of this Court in Kamlabai Khanderao Thete and another ..vs.. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete and another, reported in 1990 Mh.L.J.108. He has supported the order of grant of maintenance on merits for the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge. He has relied on the observations of this Court in Kamlabai Khanderao Thete and another ..vs.. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete and another, reported in 1990 Mh.L.J.108. Paragraph 10 of which read thus: 10- This takes me to the other question whether the learned Magistrate was justified in not granting maintenance to the daughter from the date of the application. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was not responsible for the delay in deciding the matter and that, therefore, by necessary implication, it means that he was not obliged to maintain her during the pendency of the application. The learned Magistrate forgot to take note of the fact that during this period when the proceeding was delayed by respondent No.1 did not pay anything to her. She was equally faultless, as she too was not responsible for the delay. The normal rule is to grant maintenance from the date of the application, and not from the date of the order. It is only when there are very exceptional circumstances, for valid reasons, it is open to a Magistrate to grant maintenance with effect from a subsequent date.. And Shobha Bhaurao Rane and others ..vs.. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane, reported in 2003 (4)Mh. L. J. 750, paragraph 3 of which read thus: 3- I have also taken a similar view Wajed Khan s/o Maheboob Khan ..vs.. Mohasinabi d/o Mustafa Khan and another reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 94 = 2002 All MR (Cri) 1978. In Kamlabai Khanderao Thete and another ..vs.. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete reported in 1990 Mh.L.J. 108 and in Kedari Shankarrao Shinde ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1992 (1) M.L.R. 359 also the view taken is that as a normal rule the maintenance should be granted from the date of application unless there are justifiable reasons for departing from this normal rule in exceptional circumstances due to which the grant of maintenance may be from subsequent date. These rulings referred to above apply with equal force to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.. 9. He has; relying on the observations in 1995(5) SCC 767 [V.M. Shah ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another.; contended that the findings recorded by the criminal court stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court. These rulings referred to above apply with equal force to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.. 9. He has; relying on the observations in 1995(5) SCC 767 [V.M. Shah ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another.; contended that the findings recorded by the criminal court stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court. Thereby , the finding of the civil court get precedence over the findings recorded by the trial court, in particular in summary trial for offence like Section 630. The mere pendency of the appeal does not have the effect of suspending the operation of the decree of the trial court and neither the finding of the civil court gets nor the decree becomes inoperative. On the basis of these observations, he has submitted that there is decree of civil court in HMP 246/1997 by the Judgment dated 2.5.2002 by which the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was later on amended to seek divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act of respondent was dismissed. It was confirmed in civil appeal no.160/2002. Therefore, now criminal court can not conclude that wife has left the matrimonial house without sufficient cause and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, has relied on the unreported judgment of this court in Criminal Application No.263/2003 [Vasantrao Mahadeo Marbate ..vs.. Nalini Vasantrao Marbate and others. by which the maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of the order. He has contended that the findings of the civil court against the husband who is petitioner in revision 132/2003 can not be said to be binding in view of the admissions given by the wife in her evidence. According to him, on merits, the learned Judge, Family Court should not have granted maintenance. In any case if the maintenance is granted, it should be from the date of the order. He has taken me through the cross-examination of the wife to contend that the admissions given by her in her evidence leads to the conclusion that it was the wife who was responsible for leaving matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and therefore, she was not entitled for maintenance. He has taken me through the cross-examination of the wife to contend that the admissions given by her in her evidence leads to the conclusion that it was the wife who was responsible for leaving matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and therefore, she was not entitled for maintenance. In short, according to him, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, is devoid of any merits and is liable to be set aside and if it is held that the applicant is entitled for maintenance; order should be from the date of the order. 11. It is clear in view of 1995(5) SCC 767 [V.M. Shah ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another. that the finding of the civil court is binding in the proceedings dealt by the criminal court. In the present case, after reading the cross examination of the wife, particularly some of the admissions given by her, they may tend to show that wife is interested in taking job at Nagpur, where her mother is working. However, fact remains that the applicant no.1 had taken a job at Nasik where her husband was living. It was in English Medium School. Therefore, clearly; it is not possible to believe that she would go to the extent of leaving her matrimonial home only for taking Job at Nagpur. There is apparently no reason on record to show that there is any other sufficient reason for her to opt for Nagpur sacrificing her matrimonial life. Learned Judge of the Family Court has given good reasons for coming to the conclusion that the applicant wife is entitled for maintenance. She has dealt with the admissions given by the applicant in her cross examination with sufficiently sound reasons. It is difficult to find fault with the reasons given by the learned Judge. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 14 the learned Judge has found that it can not be said that the petitioner- wife is residing separately from the respondent without any reasonable cause. It is difficult to find fault with the reasons given by the learned Judge. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 14 the learned Judge has found that it can not be said that the petitioner- wife is residing separately from the respondent without any reasonable cause. The petitioner has submitted the certified copy of the judgment in H.M.P.247/1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik on 2.3.2002 by which he dismissed the petition for divorce by the husband, though initially it was filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which was clearly depicting the intention of the husband that he was not inclined to have restitution of conjugal right and get back the wife at matrimonial house. 12. At this stage, it is necessary to see the observations of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik in the judgment rendered by him in HMP No.246/1997 in a petition filed by the respondent husband . Rajendra. He has after detailed consideration of the evidence brought on record; found that the husband's evidence is totally focused on the claim of divorce and in evidence, he did not make any statement of preparedness to resume cohabitation. It is therefore apparent that the petitioner had no mind to resume cohabitation and soon after the departure of the respondent, he made demand of divorce in letter exhibit 49. In letter part of the judgment he has observed that he is not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner . husband that the respondent's mother -wife's mother does not want to send her for cohabitation, as she runs school at Nagpur and for that she requires help of applicant no.1. Thus the petitioner (respondent) sought to contend that the applicant no.1 mother want that the respondent should live with her to manage her school. He did not think that any mother would keep married daughter having one child at the parental house for her own monetary gain. Further he has observed that there must be bonafide desire on the part of the petitioner to resume cohabitation and court must be satisfied that if wife returned to the house of husband, he would behave with conjugal kindness. Further he has observed that there must be bonafide desire on the part of the petitioner to resume cohabitation and court must be satisfied that if wife returned to the house of husband, he would behave with conjugal kindness. And finally he has opined that he did not think that she was unjustified in staying with parents and therefore it can not be said that the respondent i.e. wife has withdrawn herself from the society of petitioner without reasonable cause or excuse. This clearly means that the civil court has found that the wife has not withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable cause or excuse. 13. The matter was carried in Civil Appeal No. 160/2002 by husband . Rajendra. The 4th Additional District Judge Nasik dismissed the said appeal. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the husband i.e. petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 132/2003 that the further proceedings has been taken up and therefore, the finding of the civil court cannot be said to be binding. In my opinion this contention can not be accepted for the observations of the Hon. Apex Court in a case referred to above i.e. (1995) 5 SCC 767 [V.M.Shah ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another.. 14. Therefore, on merits, the order of the learned Judge Family Court does not seem to be illegal, improper or unjust and as such it is not liable to be set aside, rather it needs to be confirmed. 15. Parties did not raise any objections to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Judge Family Court. 16. The question now would be whether the Judge of the Family Court was right in ordering the maintenance from the date of the order. 17. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in 113/2003 for the observations of this court in 1990 Mh.L.J. 108 Kamlabai Khanderao Thete and another ..vs.. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete and another. and 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 750 [Shobha Bhaurao Rane and others ..vs.. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane. , the learned Trial Judge should have granted the maintenance from the date of the application as it was a normal rule and there are no reasons to deviate fro the said rule in the present case. 18. As against this, the learned counsel for the husband . Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane. , the learned Trial Judge should have granted the maintenance from the date of the application as it was a normal rule and there are no reasons to deviate fro the said rule in the present case. 18. As against this, the learned counsel for the husband . i.e. petitioner in 132/2003, in view of the observations of this court in Criminal Application No.263/2003[Vasantrao Mahadeorao Marbate ..vs.. Nalini Vasantrao Marbate. submitted that learned Judge, Family Court has rightly directed the payment of maintenance from the date of order. He has relied on unreported Judgment of this court referred above. 19. It is apparent from the judgments of this court in 1990 Mh.L.J. 108 [Kamlabai Khanderao Thete and another ..vs.. Khanderao Murlidhar Thete and another. and 2003(4)Mh.L.J. 750 [Shobha Bhaurao Rane and others ..vs.. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane., the normal rule is that the maintenance should be granted from the date of the application, unless there are justifiable reasons for departing from this rule. 20. While rendering the judgment in Criminal application no.263/2002, [Vasant Mahadeorao Marbate ..vs.. Nalini Vasantrao Marbate.. dated 19.7.2005, this court has observed in paragraph 5 thus: .5- Pointing out the provisions of Section 125 (2) of Cr.P.C. it has been contended by learned counsel for applicant that the order of payment of maintenance allowance should be with effect from the date of order. If the order is to take effect from the date of application, reasons are required to be given. Learned counsel for respondents, though initially pointed out that this amendment was brought in with effect from 24th September, 20901, but on examination it is found that before amendment by Act 50 of 2001, this position was the same. Initially, under the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C. the order of maintenance was required to be passed from the date of application and if it was to be effective from the date of order, reasons were required to be given. Now, the position is other way round. The order of maintenance is to come into effect from the date of order and if it is intended to be given effect from the date of application, reasons should be given. On perusal of order of learned Magistrate, it would be seen that the order is made to take effect from the date of application filed by the respondents. The order of maintenance is to come into effect from the date of order and if it is intended to be given effect from the date of application, reasons should be given. On perusal of order of learned Magistrate, it would be seen that the order is made to take effect from the date of application filed by the respondents. No reasons have been given by learned Magistrate for making the order effective from the date of application. Revisional Court also overlooked the same. In view of this, present application deserves to be allowed to this limited extent.. 21. It clearly appears that the judgment of this court in 1995 (5) SCC 767 [V.M. shah ..vs.. State of Maharashtra & another. and 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 750 [Shobha Bhaurao Rane and others ..vs.. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane. were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge while deciding Criminal Application No.263/2002. In my opinion, in the circumstances of the case, whether the civil court had awarded the permanent alimony to the applicant wife from the date of the order i.e. 2.3.2002 only in favour of wife, in my opinion, as there appear no sufficient reasons; for not awarding the maintenance from the date of the application, the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of the application. It is necessary to bear in mind that the petition for grant of maintenance was filed in 1997, it was decided in 2003, the alimony granted by the civil court was granted in 2002, there appears no interim order of maintenance in favour of the applicants. In such circumstances, when there is apparently no evidence on record to suggest that the applicant . wife and son had any sufficient means to maintain themselves, during the proceedings of the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. the order of granting the maintenance should have been from the date of the application. More so, in view of the latest Judgment of this Court in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 750 [Shobha Bhaurao Rane and others ..vs.. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane., I must say, with respects; that it is not possible to agree with the view taken in Criminal application No.263 of 2003 [Vasant Mahadeo Marbate ..vs.. Nalini Vasantrao Marbate and other. in the circumstances referred to above and to take view in favour of the husband revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 132/2003. 21. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane., I must say, with respects; that it is not possible to agree with the view taken in Criminal application No.263 of 2003 [Vasant Mahadeo Marbate ..vs.. Nalini Vasantrao Marbate and other. in the circumstances referred to above and to take view in favour of the husband revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 132/2003. 21. As such in this case maintenance will have to be ordered from the date of application. 22. Therefore, final result would be : Criminal Revision Application No.132/2003 will have to be dismissed and Criminal Revision Application No.113/2003 will have to be allowed. As such Criminal Revision Application No.132/2003 is dismissed. Criminal Revision Application No.113/2003 is allowed, while maintaining the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in petition No.E-343/1997 dated 31.5.2003, it is partly modified and the maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of the application. Order accordingly