JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar holding brief of Sri Haridwar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist. None responded for opposite party. 2. This criminal revision by Harish Chandra Yadav has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.7.2003, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 170 of 1998, Usha v. Harish Chandra Yadav, whereby the learned Judge directed the revisionist by allowing application of opposite party Usha under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to pay Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance to opposite party from the date of presenting application for maintenance i.e. 19.12.1998. 3. Learned Counsel for revisionist has argued that the learned Judge erred in granting maintenance allowance to the opposite party from the date of making application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The maintenance allowance should have been awarded from the date of order. 4. It has been held in the case of Basant Lal v. State of U.P., 1996 Cri LJ 69 (All) that the provisions of Section 125 (2), Cr.P.C. being not mandatory maintenance can be granted from the date of application. If the claim of maintenance is denied from the date of application then the Court should record reasons for not granting maintenance from the date of application. 5. In the case of Shiv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2007(57) ACC 924, it has been observed by this Court that the petitioner becomes entitled to get maintenance from the date of filing of application. If in any case the interim maintenance was ordered or was paid during pendency of the petition in that situation the trial Court may order maintenance from the date of the order. 6. A perusal of the record suggests that in this case no maintenance was granted to the opposite party before filing of the application or during the pendency of the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The opposite party has specifically stated that right from the time she was turned out of her matrimonial home, she has not been paid any maintenance by the revisionist. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Basant Lal v. State of U.P. (supra) and Shiv Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (supra), since in this case no maintenance was paid to the opposite party during pendency of her application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that the learned Judge Family Court did not commit any error in granting maintenance to the opposite party from the date of making application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. In view of above, the revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. ————