JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month to the petitioner as directed to be paid from the date of impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to the respondent. The respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and turned her out from the marital home without any justification. The petitioner filed an application before the Family Court under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and during the pendency of the application, another application for being granted interim maintenance was filed by her, in which, it was claimed that since the respondent had turned her out from the house without any justification and as the respondent had an income well in excess of Rs. 30,000/- per month by operating a tea stall, accordingly, a prayer was made for grant of interim maintenance at a rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Family Judge directed payment of interim maintenance to the petitioner payable from the date of passing of the impugned order at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. The said order whereby, the amount of interim maintenance payable to the petitioner has been limited only up to Rs. 900/- per month has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this instant revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the amount of interim maintenance is extremely on the lower side and secondly the interim maintenance should have been awarded from the date of the application and not from the date of the order as has been done by the learned Family Judge. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Saygo Bai v. Clneeern Bajrangi, reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 1007. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not been able to place on record any material to show that the respondent in having a capacity to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month as claimed by her. He thus submits that the direction of the learned Family Judge for the payment of interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month as claimed by her. He thus submits that the direction of the learned Family Judge for the payment of interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month cannot be said to be on the lower side. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and given my thoughtful consideration to the augments advanced at the bar. 6. In the opinion of this Court, it is apparent that there is specific averment of the petitioner that the respondent is earning well in excess of Rs. 30,000/- per month by operating a tea stall. Though the exact income of the respondent has to be determined by the learned Family Court when the application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is finally decided but at this stage there could not have been any reason for disbelieving the averment of the petitioner. Furthermore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, the direction to make the payment of interim maintenance from the date of the order also does not appear to be just and proper. 7. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. It is hereby directed that the petitioner shall now be entitled to receive an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the respondent from the date of filing of the application till the date of this order. Thereafter, from the date of this Court's order, the petitioner will be awarded interim maintenance at the rate Rs. 1500/- per month. The learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur is directed to enforce the order of interim maintenance as well as of the arrears accrued thus far by issuing warrant of recovery forthwith.Petition allowed. *******