Judgment 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an interim order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance to the respondents herein. 3. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the maintenance has wrongly been made payable from the date of the original application, whereas the same should have been made payable from the date of the application for interim maintenance. It is not in dispute that the application for maintenance was filed by the respondents herein on 02.05.2011. It is also not in dispute that the application (Exhibit 32) for interim maintenance, on which the impugned order came to be passed, was made on 10.09.2012. The impugned order granting interim maintenance directs that it shall be paid from the date of the filing of the main application i.e. 02.05.2011. 4. Initially, in section 125 of the Code, there was no provision for grant of interim maintenance. On the basis of the judicial pronouncements, subsequently, the said section was amended to provide for interim maintenance also. Sub-section (2) of section 125 reads as under:- “125 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. – (1) ******** (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.” 5. It is clear from a reading of said sub-section that in the context of interim maintenance, the date of application would be the date of application for interim maintenance. Therefore, the interim maintenance could have been made payable by the Magistrate either from the date of his order i.e. 30th April, 2013, or from the date of the application for interim maintenance i.e. 10.09.2012. It could not have been made payable from 02.05.2011. To that extent, the impugned order is erroneous. 6. It is submitted that there is no case for grant of interim maintenance. It could not have been made payable from 02.05.2011. To that extent, the impugned order is erroneous. 6. It is submitted that there is no case for grant of interim maintenance. But, considering that the matter before the Magistrate has not yet attained finality, it would not be proper to interfere in the matter at this stage by exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In my opinion, interference is warranted only to extent of the date from which such interim maintenance would be payable. 7. The Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order shall stand modified to the extent that the interim maintenance shall be payable from 10.09.2012 i.e. from the date on which the application for interim maintenance was made. Save and except as aforesaid, no other modification in the impugned order. 8. The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and to the aforesaid extent. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.