Judgment : 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. Both the proceedings are filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2008, which was pending in the Court of Sessions, Jalgaon. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class had refused maintenance in the proceeding bearing Criminal M.A. No. 621 of 2001 which was filed under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code by the wife. The Sessions Court allowed the revision of the wife by setting aside the judgment of J.M.F.C. The Sessions Court has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. As the Sessions Court has made the maintenance payable from 18.7.2008, which is the date of decision of the proceeding, which was filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before J.M.F.C., Criminal Writ Petition No. 762 of 2011 is filed by the wife. It is the case of wife that she is entitled to get maintenance right from the date of application i.e. 11.10.2001. As the judgment and order of J.M.F.C. is set aside and maintenance is allowed to the wife in revision, this decision is challenged by husband in Criminal Writ Petition No. 593 of 2011. 3. The parties are Hindus. Their marriage took place in the year 1988 and there was cohabitation till 1996. It is the case of wife that the husband was saying that he had not approved her for the marriage and the marriage was settled against his wish. It is her case that the relatives of the husband were also giving ill-treatment to her and they were even assaulting her. Two issues were born during the cohabitation. It is the case of the wife that husband and his relatives were not happy as she gave birth to two daughters. It is her case that on 24.9.1996 severe beating was given to her and she was instigated to commit suicide. It appears that she had set herself on fire and she sustained 67% burn injuries. Out of this incident, she gave report to police and case under section 498A of I.P.C. was filed against the husband and his relatives. It is her case that after this incident, she was sent to the house of her parents by the husband. It is her case that the custody of two daughters was taken forcibly by husband from her. 4. It is her case that after this incident, she was sent to the house of her parents by the husband. It is her case that the custody of two daughters was taken forcibly by husband from her. 4. It is the case of wife that the husband has deserted her and he is not ready to accept her in matrimonial house. It is her case that she and her relatives made many attempts to convince the husband, but the husband is insisting that the case filed under section 498-A of I.P.C. must be withdrawn first. It is her case that the husband has not made any provision for her maintenance and she has no source of income to maintain herself. It is her case that her husband is in the business of paint, he owns irrigated agricultural land and he owns a tractor bearing No. MH-15/N-7581. It is her case that the annual income of husband is more than Rs. five lakhs. She had claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. Maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p.m. is granted to her. 5. It is the case of husband that right from beginning the conduct of wife was not proper. It is his case that the wife was leaving the matrimonial house time and again and she was returning to the house of her parents where she was staying for quite long period. It is his case that every time he was required to go there and bring the wife to the matrimonial house. It is his case that in this manner, the wife cohabited with him for about five years. It is his case that the wife was not doing household work, she was insulting him and his relatives and the wife was insisting him to live separate from his parents. It is his case that the wife and her relatives were insisting that he should shift to the house of parents of the wife and there, he should do some work. It is his case that the wife was giving threat of suicide and false implication in criminal case to compel him to shift from the house of his parents to the house of her parents. It is his case that the wife was always expressing that she wanted to marry a man in service and not a person like him. It is his case that the wife was giving threat of suicide and false implication in criminal case to compel him to shift from the house of his parents to the house of her parents. It is his case that the wife was always expressing that she wanted to marry a man in service and not a person like him. It is his case that the wife has great attachment towards her parents and so, she is living with them. 6. It is the case of husband that on 23.3.1996 the brother of the wife came to his house and insisted that he should shift to the house of parents of his wife. It is his case that when he refused, the brother of wife started instigating his wife to commit suicide. It is his case that on 24.9.1996 the wife attempted to commit suicide by setting herself on fire. It is his case that he shifted her to hospital and he had spent huge amount for treatment and his relatives gave skin for grafting. It is his case that after the treatment, from the hospital itself, brother of the wife took her to the house of her parents and since then, she has not returned to the matrimonial house. It is his case that he made many attempts to bring her back to matrimonial house, but she is not ready to return back. 7. It is the case of husband that during treatment doctor had told that in future there was no possibility of having any child due to injuries sustained by the wife. It is his case that the wife has become ugly due to burn injuries. It is his case that there is tendency in the members of family of the parents of wife to commit suicide. 8. It is the case of husband that a false case for offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. is filed to pressurize him. It is his case that his parents became angry and as they are defamed, they have driven him out of their house. It is his case that he is living separate from his parents and for earning livelihood, he is required to do labour work. It is his case that he has filed proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights. It is his case that the wife is doing tailoring work and she is earing daily Rs. It is his case that he is living separate from his parents and for earning livelihood, he is required to do labour work. It is his case that he has filed proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights. It is his case that the wife is doing tailoring work and she is earing daily Rs. 50/- to 100/- and so no maintenance is required to be paid to her. 9. Before J.M.F.C. wife examined herself to prove her case. The husband examined himself and he has examined one daughter in support of his defence. Admittedly, a case was filed for offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. against the husband and his relatives due to the incident in which the wife attempted to commit suicide. Admittedly, after that incident, though after treatment, the wife has been living with her parents. The wife has given evidence that she was ready to return to the matrimonial house, but, husband was not ready to take her back. This contention of wife finds support in the say offered by the husband. The say of the husband shows that it is not possible to have a child from the wife due to burn injuries which she sustained in the aforesaid incident. There are only two daughters to this couple. He has also come with a case that the wife has become ugly. He has made allegations that there is tendency in the members of family of the parents of wife to commit suicide. Nothing is said by the husband about the financial status of the parents of the wife though he has tried to say that the wife and her brother were insisting him to shift to the house of her parents. On the other hand, to show that he has no property, now he has contended that his parents have driven him out of their house. 10. The evidence of wife is consistent with her case. The reasons for which the ill-treatment was give are stated by the wife in the evidence. She has reiterated that more ill-treatment was given to her when she gave birth to second daughter. She has given evidence that the husband and his relatives wanted son from her. 10. The evidence of wife is consistent with her case. The reasons for which the ill-treatment was give are stated by the wife in the evidence. She has reiterated that more ill-treatment was given to her when she gave birth to second daughter. She has given evidence that the husband and his relatives wanted son from her. The case of wife and the evidence given by the wife show that there is force in her case as the husband has given say that after sustaining burn injuries it was not possible for the wife to have a child and she has become ugly. The wife has fairly admitted in the evidence that the husband spent huge amount on her treatment and the relatives of husband gave skin when she required skin for grafting purpose. She has deposed that after her desertion by the husband, many attempts were made by her to return to matrimonial house and she is still ready to return to the matrimonial house. During cross examination, she has admitted that she is still hoping that her husband will take her back to matrimonial house and only due to such hope, she has filed maintenance proceeding. The record produced shows that she filed compromise pursis in the case filed against husband and his relatives for offence punishable under section 498-A r/w. 34 of I.P.C. etc. and due to this approach of the wife, the husband and his relatives were acquitted by the criminal Court. Then the wife has given evidence on income source of husband and has produced the 7/12 extract of the land standing in the name of family of the father of the husband. 11. The evidence of husband shows that he has not come with any specific case as to when he made any attempt to bring the wife back to the matrimonial house. Though he has given some names of the witnesses in the Court, who had gone to the house of the parents of wife, these witnesses are not examined. It appears that he filed one proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights, but this single circumstance is not sufficient to infer that he is ready to accept the wife in matrimonial house. The evidence given in the cross examination by the husband shows that he is not ready to accept the wife for cohabitation. It appears that he filed one proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights, but this single circumstance is not sufficient to infer that he is ready to accept the wife in matrimonial house. The evidence given in the cross examination by the husband shows that he is not ready to accept the wife for cohabitation. In the cross examination, he has further admitted that he sent wife and daughters to the house of parents of wife directly from the hospital. The husband has examined his daughter Kanchan, but her evidence is only to the effect that her mother did not return to matrimonial house to resume cohabitation. This evidence of Kanchan is of no use due to refusal of the husband to accept the wife in matrimonial house. 12. In spite of aforesaid circumstances and the evidence on record, the J.M.F.C. had refused maintenance to the wife. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid evidence and circumstances are sufficient to infer that husband has refused and neglected to maintain the wife. 13. The revenue record shows that agricultural land admeasuring 3.66 H. was standing in the name of father of the husband. The wife has given evidence on the other source of income of the husband. The daughter Kanchan is studying in Pune and she is doing a course there. The evidence of the husband and suggestions put to wife during cross examination show that husband spent more than Rs. six lakh on treatment of wife. All these circumstances show that the financial condition of husband is sound. Considering the status of the parties and the capacity of the husband to earn, it can be said that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month for maintenance of wife is a meagre amount. Thus, there is no reason to interfere in the decision given by the Sessions Court on the point of quantum of maintenance. 14. On the point of date from which the maintenance needs to be paid, the learned counsel for husband relied on the wording of provisions of section 125 of Cr.P.C. On this point, the learned counsel for wife relied on the interpretation of provision of section 125 made by the Apex Court, which is used by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1008 of 2009 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench). The case of the Apex Court reported as 2008 (4) Bombay Criminal Cases 728 [Shail Kumari Devi and others Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak alias Kishum B. Pathak] is referred by this Court. It is observed that the maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be awarded from the date of application and for doing so, no special reasons are required to be recorded by the Court. It is observed that if there was no fault on the part of wife for delay caused in deciding the matter, she cannot be denied maintenance from the date of application. In the cases reported as 2008 Crimes 3729 [Sau Rupali and Anr. Vs. Moreshwar) and 1989 Mh.L.J. 1031 Bombay High Court [Sharda Gunwantrao Kadu Vs. Gunwantrao Funjabrao Kadu] also similar observations are made. In view of this interpretation of the provision of section 125 of Cr.P.C., this Court holds that the judgment and order of Sessions Court awarding maintenance from the date of decision given by the J.M.F.C. needs to be corrected. In the result, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 762 of 2011 is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of Sessions Court delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2008 is modified. (a) The maintenance amount awarded by the Sessions Court is to be paid from the date of filing of proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C. (b) The other part of judgment and order of Sessions Court is maintained. (iii) Rule is made absolute in these terms in Criminal Writ Petition No. 762 of 2011. (iv) Criminal Writ Petition No. 593 of 2011 is dismissed. Rule is discharged in this Criminal Writ Petition. (v) The amount, if any, deposited by the husband in the Court is to be adjusted towards payment of arrears of maintenance to the wife.