Judgment : 1. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the revisionist / wife has sought to challenge Order No. 9 dated 11.02.2009 passed by the court of the learned Additional District Judge at Durgapur, in connection with Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2008. The background facts leading to filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be summarized as under :- 2. The revisionist / wife filed a maintenance proceeding registered as Misc. Case No. 21 of 2000 against her husband, Opposite Party No. 1, before the court of the learned Sub – Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, alleging ill-treatment and torture both physical and mental on non-fulfilment of further dowry demand by her husband and in-laws. Since the petitioner / wife was a teacher of Assembly of God Church School, her in-laws created pressure upon her for relinquishing the job. A son was also born out of the said wedlock. Ultimately on 25.04.1999, she was assaulted by her husband and inlaws and was driven out along with her son, Sabyasachi. The Opposite Party / husband was running a coaching centre for boys and girls of Class IX to Degree Course on different subjects and was earning more than Rs. 10,000/= at that material point of time. She, therefore, claimed maintenance for her minor son at the rate of Rs. 1500/-per month. 3. The Opposite party / husband has sought to resist the claim of maintenance by filing a written objection controverting all the materials allegations levelled against him in the petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contended therein, inter alia, that after delivery of the child the parents of the petitioner took her and her baby to their house and despite repeated attempts on his part to bring back his wife and son, the petitioner refused to lead a conjugal life with him on the ground that atmosphere and environment of her matrimonial house is not conducive to proper upbringing of her son. He was asked to leave his paternal home at Faridpur and to shift at City Centre, i.e. in his – in-laws’ house. In view of refusal by the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in criminal cases. He also filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Durgapur, being Mat. He was asked to leave his paternal home at Faridpur and to shift at City Centre, i.e. in his – in-laws’ house. In view of refusal by the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in criminal cases. He also filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Durgapur, being Mat. Suit No. 166 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of the said suit the learned Additional District Judge asked the petitioner to resume her normal conjugal life, but the petitioner refused to oblige the learned Judge at the time of such reconciliation. According to him, the petitioner / wife was staying at her paternal house along with her minor son out of her own volition. That apart, the petitioner/wife has sufficient income per month to maintain the minor son from the huge money lying in the Bank in the name of the minor son. His further contention is that he is a private tutor by profession and he earns hardly Rs. 1400/- per month. However, he is now pursing legal study under Vinod Bhaba University, Hazaribagh and as such it is now not possible for him to continue private tuition since he was to attend law classes. Since he never refused or neglected to maintain his son, the petition claiming maintenance for minor son is liable to be dismissed. 4. On consideration of averments made in the pleading and also evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur, vide his order dated 29.02.2008 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month for the minor son, Sabyasachi Gupta, by 15th of every month with effect from the date of filing of opposite party’s objection, i.e. on and from 24.01.2001. the learned Magistrate further ordered that total arrear of maintenance from 20.01.2001 to 24.02.2008 i.e. 84 months, a total sum of Rs. 63,000/- is to be paid in consecutive instalments into a Government Financial Instrument for the future welfare of the child. The said instalments to be completed by 24.01.2009 beginning from next consecutive month subject to adjustment of interim maintenance already paid by the opposite party in terms of the learned Magistrate’s order directing payment of interim maintenance to his minor son. 5. The said instalments to be completed by 24.01.2009 beginning from next consecutive month subject to adjustment of interim maintenance already paid by the opposite party in terms of the learned Magistrate’s order directing payment of interim maintenance to his minor son. 5. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the husband/ opposite party preferred Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2008 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durgapur. After hearing both sides, the learned revisional court vide order dated 11.02.2009 allowed the revisional application on contest in part. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month to his minor son, Sabyasachi Gupta, with effect from the date of the order in the original case, i.e. on and from 29.02.2008 and as such the order for arrear of maintenance amounting to Rs. 63,000/- payable by the revisionist was set aside. 6. Being dissatisfied with the aforementioned order passed by the learned revisional court, the wife/ petitioner has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The moot point for consideration in the instant case is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, is justified in awarding maintenance in favour of the minor son from the date of passing order by the ld. trial court instead of date of filing written objection. 8. In support of the order passed by the learned Judge it is submitted by Mr. Ahmed that the learned trial court has correctly directed payment of maintenance to the minor son from the date of filing of objection since such order was passed to protect the future of the minor son. But according to him, the learned revisional court is wrong in setting aside such order since the learned revisional court has not taken into consideration as to how the future of the minor son would be moulded in absence of sufficient amount of money being credited to his account by depositing arrear maintenance in the interest of his future studies. According to him, the learned Magistrate has assigned such reason for passing direction upon the Opposite Part to pay maintenance from the date of filing of written objection. 9. Mr. According to him, the learned Magistrate has assigned such reason for passing direction upon the Opposite Part to pay maintenance from the date of filing of written objection. 9. Mr. Subrata Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 at the outset of his argument submits that he is not challenging the order of maintenance as granted in favour of the minor son; but he only supports the decision of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge as he maintains the order of maintenance as passed by the learned Magistrate and has set aside only the portion awarding arrear maintenance from the date of filing written objection. He has drawn my attention to section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is clearly laid down that arrear of maintenance can be granted either from the date of application or from passing of order directing payment of maintenance. Such being the position of law, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in directing payment maintenance from the date of filing of written objection. Mr. Bhattacharyya, therefore, urges this court to uphold the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur. 10. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, also supports the aforementioned contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. 11. I have very carefully taken into consideration the rival submissions so advanced by all sides with reference to materials and circumstances on record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party / husband that the husband is very sincere in payment of maintenance to his minor son in terms of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and in this connection, he has drawn my attention to the opposite party’s regular payment of interim maintenance without any default in this regard to his minor son. According to him, the opposite party has just started his legal career and, although at the time of filing of petition he was a mere law student, at the time of disposal of the misc. case he has already joined the Bar. At this stage, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner / wife that the opposite party has already paid current maintenance till January, 2010 through money order to his minor son. 12. Mr. case he has already joined the Bar. At this stage, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner / wife that the opposite party has already paid current maintenance till January, 2010 through money order to his minor son. 12. Mr. Bhattacharyya tries to impress upon this court that whenever he has not neglected in payment of maintenance to his minor son in terms of the learned Magistrate’s order of the learned Magistrate directing him to pay maintenance since the date of filing of his objection, i.e. on and from 2001, would cause much hardship since his practice as a junior lawyer is not sufficient to pay such a huge amount of Rs. 63,000/- by way of arrear maintenance. 13. This court is to examine the legality and / or propriety of the order impugned passed by the learned revisional court without being swayed away by the learned counsel’s argument that because of financial stringency the opposite party is not in a position to pay such arrear maintenance. 14. On perusal of the learned Magistrate’s order I find the reasons as assigned by the learned Magistrate for awarding maintenance from the date of filing of written objection is not backed by any legal sanction since the relevant provision of law is quite clear on this point. It was quite within the discretion of the learned Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application or from the date of order. But law does not permit the learned trial court to award maintenance from the date of filing of written objection. I am afraid, the learned Magistrate in his anxiety for the future maintenance of the minor son and being prompted with such spirit of compassion, has directed investment of monthly instalments of such arrear maintenance which may accrue interest, because of its payment from the date of filing of written objection, “into Government Financial Instrument for the future welfare of the child”. It is further not clear to this Court as to what he intends to mean by “Government Financial Instrument”. At any rate, a court of law should not transgress the boundary of law in order to give undue weight to his emotional outburst by ignoring legal provisions. 15. It is further not clear to this Court as to what he intends to mean by “Government Financial Instrument”. At any rate, a court of law should not transgress the boundary of law in order to give undue weight to his emotional outburst by ignoring legal provisions. 15. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned revisional court is absolutely justified in opining that the learned Magistrate transgressed the provisions of law by directing payment of maintenance allowance with effect from a date quite different from the date of filing of the case or date of order in the case. He has, therefore, rightly opined that the order deserved interference. 16. After taking into consideration all the legal and factual aspects as involved in this case, I am of the definite view that the order passed by the learned revisional court setting aside the order of maintenance in part is quite justified and as such the order for arrear of maintenance amounting to Rs. 63,000/- payable to the revisionist has correctly been set aside. 17. In such circumstances, the only course of action open before this Court is to affirm the order passed by the learned revisional court since direction of payment of maintenance from the date of filing of application, in my considered view, is not warranted from the materials and circumstances on record. But taking into consideration the conduct of the opposite party / husband who is very much regular and sincere in payment of interim maintenance as well as payment of current maintenance to the petitioner / wife and also further taking his present financial condition as a junior lawyer in the Bar into account, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the opposite party is directed to pay maintenance from the date of the order with a specific further direction upon him to go on paying maintenance to his minor son at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month as ordered by the learned Magistrate without making any default in future in order to enable his son to continue his further studies irrespective of his mother’s financial assistance in this regard. 750/- per month as ordered by the learned Magistrate without making any default in future in order to enable his son to continue his further studies irrespective of his mother’s financial assistance in this regard. It is further made clear that this order would not preclude the petitioner/ wife to take appropriate steps against the opposite party / husband in case of default of payment of maintenance to his minor son for any particular month / months in future. 18. Accordingly, the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2008 stands affirmed. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 19. Urgent certified Photostat copy of this order, if applied for by the parties, be supplied on priority basis.