JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this cri.misc. petition are that respondent -applicant filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. stating interalia that she was married to the petitioner about 25 years ago and she was living with the petitioner for the last 25 years and thereafter she was beaten by her husband and turned out of the house . It was also averred that the petitioner has 8 bighas of agricultural land and a Tube well and his monthly income is Rs. 5,000/- per month. She claimed Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner averred in his reply that he is suffering from Tuberculosis for the last 4-5 years and when applicant came to know of this fact she deserted him. The learned trial court vide its order dated 05.07.2008 allowed the application and ordered to pay Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of presentation of the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was rejected by the learned revisional court vide its order dated 09.04.2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the court below, the petitioner has preferred this cri.misc.petition. 4. The petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 750/- per month to his wife - respondent. The learned trial court, while allowing this amount, determined the salary of the petitioner and considered the aspect that it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in a position to earn any amount and while considering this fact that the petitioner is able to earn some amount by way of labour and after considering all the relevant aspects only awarded Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. It cannot be said to be excessive or harsh. 5. The learned trial court also considered that there is no evidence to this effect that the husband is not in the position to earn any amount and the trial court arrived at the conclusion that petitioner has one bigha irrigated land and to the contrary the respondent-wife is an illiterate lady and she is not able to earn any livelihood for her. 6. 6. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the trial court, as well as the revisional court, ordered to pay maintenance allowance from the date of the filing of the application and not from the date of the order. It is settled position of law that with the reasons to be recorded , such order can be passed from the date of the application. 7. I have perused the judgment. 8. All the essential ingredients for allowing maintenance have been produced by respondent-non-petitioner. As the respondent is an illiterate lady and not able to maintain herself , therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case , the order passed by the learned lower court does not require any interference at this stage, while exercising the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******