JUDGMENT Heard Shri P.S. Sahare, learned Counsel for the revision applicant and Shri S.A. Lawtawar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Admit. Considering the nature of order assailed, calling of record and proceedings is dispensed with. 3. By consent of the parties, the Revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The applicant-husband has preferred this revision application against the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Family Court, ordering him to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to each of the respondents who are respectively wife and son of the present applicant. 5. Shri Sahare, learned Counsel for the applicant assails the impugned order on the count that the Family Court erred in ordering maintenance from the date of application i.e. the date on which the application for maintenance was preferred by the respondents i.e. since 12.06.2003. It is the grievance of the applicant that after filing of the application, an ex-parte order was passed in the said proceedings. The present applicant assailed the said order by filing appropriate proceedings and the said order was set aside. Thereafter, the applicant contested the proceedings since the year 2007 and thereabout. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the order passed in earlier proceeding was set aside, and since he has contested the proceedings from the year 2007, the Family Court manifestly erred in awarding the maintenance from the date on which the application was preferred. It is thus the submission, that the order passed suffers from incorrectness, illegality and impropriety and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Shri S.A. Lawtawar, learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid submissions, by submitting that it is a settled legal position that generally the maintenance is required to be awarded from the date on which the concerned applicant approaches the Court for enforcing right to have maintenance. It is submitted that only in exceptional cases, such an order is passed from the date of order. It is therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the submission that the maintenance should not have been ordered from the year 2003, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has not approached the court in the said year. It is therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the submission that the maintenance should not have been ordered from the year 2003, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has not approached the court in the said year. It is his submission that the respondents had approached in the year 2003 for enforcing their right and once their rights to have maintenance was upheld, then they were entitled to have maintenance from the date on which they had approached the Court. It is thus contended that there is no merit in the contention raised and as such, the orders passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any incorrectness, illegality and impropriety and the application of applicant deserves to be dismissed. 7. After careful considering the submission canvassed by both the parties, it is difficult to accept the submissions canvassed, that the Family Court committed any error in awarding the maintenance from the date of application i.e. since the year 2003. The same is obvious as undoubtly the order impugned reveals that the applicants/respondents have approached the court for enforcing their rights in the year 2003. Now for some reason, the application remained pending or earlier an ex-parte order was passed and thereafter the same was set aside, would not ipso-facto change the date on which the applicants/respondents had approached the Court for enforcing their right. Further more, even assuming that after setting aside the exparte order, the applicant has contested the proceeding only since the year 2007 or thereabout, still it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the applicant had received all opportunity to contest the said proceedings for grant of maintenance from the date of application. Having regard to the same, apparently there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order awarding maintenance from the date of application. Thus, there is no merit in the application. The Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.