JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by Family Court, Kota. It was on an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that maintenance has been awarded from the date of application, whereas it should be only from the date of order unless specific reasons are recorded. A reference of Division Bench judgment in the case of Qamruddin v. Srimati Rashida, reported in 1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) 305 has been given. 3. It is further stated that income of petitioner has not been properly assessed as he is earning only Rs. 100-150/- per day, thus, award of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance is excessive, hence, impugned order may be set aside. 4. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. The first issue is as to whether maintenance can be given only from the date of order or can be from the date of application. For that purpose, Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is relevant, is quoted hereunder: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-(1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, 6. A Magistrate of' the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of' sufficient means. Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the Proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person] Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (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. (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. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the dare on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, if she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order." 7. From perusal of aforesaid, it becomes clear that a direction for payment of maintenance can be from the date of order or it can be from the date of application. From perusal of aforesaid, it becomes clear that a direction for payment of maintenance can be from the date of order or it can be from the date of application. Looking to the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality, if the direction is given to allow maintenance from the date of application. 8. The issue aforesaid has become academic now as petitioner has already made compliance of the order and paid amount of maintenance from the date of application. 9. So far as second issue is concerned, I find the court below has considered the factum as what would be appropriate amount towards maintenance and thereupon taking note of the evidence led by both the parties, allowed maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It seems to be appropriate and not excessive in any manner. The petitioner is running a kirana shop though according to petitioner, he is earning Rs. 100-150/- per day, whereas according to respondents, his earning is Rs. 20,000/- per month. 10. In view of the above, there is evidence against evidence and petitioner has not produced any documents to show his income to be Rs. 100-150/- per day. The documents could have been in the form of cash book or ledger as the petitioner is running a kirana shop. 11. In the background aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition so as stay application are accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******