JUDGMENT : Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J. This Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 03rd July 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Cr. Revision No.116/2010- Smt Geeta & anr v. Bheema Gurjar and anr., whereby Revision Petition of respondent-wife was allowed and order dated 21.04.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi (Bhilwara) was modified to the extent that the petitioner-husband was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance to respondent-wife and their daughter from the date of making application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code before learned Magistrate. 2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that respondent-wife and her daughter preferred an application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code against petitioner-husband before learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi on 17.11.2005. In the application, it was averred that the applicant was married to petitioner, in the marriage her parents gave 'stridhan' etc and out of the wedlock, one daughter (Kailashi) born to them. After the marriage, behaviour of the petitioner-husband became cruel towards her, she was being harrassed & tortured with demand of dowry and ultimately, on 26.09.2005, she was expelled from matrimonial home. The applicant-wife with their daughter is presently residing with her parent at her parental house in village-Gurjaron Ka Nohra (Jawal) and the petitioner-husband is not discharging his maintenance obligation for them. The petitioner-husband is quite rich, he has residential house and his income is more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. In reply, the petitioner-husband contended that after the marriage, the applicant-wife used to live at her parents house and under influence of her parents, she deliberately avoids coming to matrimonial home despite giving understanding and he has also filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and he is ready & willing to stay in relation and live in company with the applicant-wife. 4. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence adduced by parties, learned Magistrate accepted the application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 1000/- each to the applicant-wife and minor daughter, from the date of the order. 5. Aggrieved by grant of maintenance from the date of passing of the order, the applicant-wife preferred a Revision Petition before learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed vide judgment dated 03rd July 2010. 1000/- each to the applicant-wife and minor daughter, from the date of the order. 5. Aggrieved by grant of maintenance from the date of passing of the order, the applicant-wife preferred a Revision Petition before learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed vide judgment dated 03rd July 2010. Learned Sessions Judge observed that the court below has not assigned any reason for not granting the maintenance allowance from the date of filing application. It is also not established that during the pendency of the application, the applicants would have lived with the petitioner-husband or the petitioner-husband would have made any effective effort to bring them to matrimonial home. Therefore, as per settled position of law, maintenance allowance ought to have been awarded from the date of filing application by the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the present petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate ordered for grant of maintenance allowance from the date of the order because the applicants did not file any application for interim maintenance. It is further contended that from the evidence, it is clear that the respondent-wife has deserted the matrimonial home at her own and hence, the respondent-wife is not entitled for any maintenance. 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner-husband is ready and willing to keep and maintain the respondent-wife and their daughter and he has also filed application for restitution of conjugal rights. In view of these, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in modifying the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shahzad Bano v. Sher Mohammad, reported in 1990 RCC 57. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of learned court below and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rightly modified the order in view of settled position of law in respect of grant of maintenance allowance from the date of filing application. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi and anr v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, 2008 Cr.L.R (SC) 686. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the order impugned. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi and anr v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, 2008 Cr.L.R (SC) 686. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the order impugned. It is clear that the respondent-wife and minor daughter have been living at parental home of respondent-wife and admittedly, it is responsibility of the petitioner-husband to look after and maintain them. Therefore, in view of settled position of law, learned court below rightly modified payment of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application by applicants. 10. As regard decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is not applicable to the limited issue involved in the present revision viz. the date from which maintenance allowance is to be payable by the petitioner-husband. 11. In this context, I am rather strengthened in my view by the observations in this respect in Shail Kumari's case (supra), wherein by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the point of right of the wife to claim maintenance and laid down in the following terms: "...maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of 'special reasons' though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him." 12. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the order impugned, warranting any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 13. In the result, present Revision Petition fails, having no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The Stay Petition also accordingly stands dismissed.