JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married with respondent on 25.11.2005. Thereafter, respondent raised allegations against the petitioner and his relatives that they tortured her physically as well as mentally, while demanding dowry and dispossessed her from her in-laws' house. The respondent filed an application for maintenance under section 125 IPC, to which a reply was filed by the petitioner clarifying his financial status. Thereafter, an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the respondent. The Family court, Jodhpur ,vide its order dated 21.01.2010, granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent which shall be payable from the date of filing of application for interim maintenance till the final order for maintenance is passed in the criminal case. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this cri.misc. Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has ordered to pay interim maintenance from the date of the application, without assigning any reason. He further contended that such an order is illegal, improper and perverse. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his case : 1. Qamruddin v. Srimati Rashida [1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) 305] and 2. Paramveer Singh v. Smt. Suresh Kanwar, [2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 753]. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the judgments cited above. It is a settled law that the maintenance allowance can be granted from the date of the order or from the date of the application. But when the trial court has ordered to grant it from the date of the application, I think the trial court has committed no error in granting it. So far as the reasons are concerned, it may be added here that it is the admitted fact that respondent is the wife of the petitioner and she maintained herself even during the period from the date of application to the date of the order. Therefore, I think there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court . This cri. misc. Petition being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******