Judgment : 1) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner(husband) under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2014 in M.C. No.121 of 2010 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2) The order of maintenance awarded to the wife at Rs.2,500/-per month and to the minor son at Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of petition. Now impugned on several grounds not only on the quantum while admitting the relationship but also on entitlement in saying the wife refused to join the husband even several efforts made pending trial of the maintenance case before the trial Court for re-conciliation and there is no negligence or refusal by the husband as he expressed his willingness to take his wife to his fold but for her refusal and living away and once there is no refusal to maintain apart from she got means to maintain herself, the awarding of maintenance to the wife at Rs.2,500/- per month that too from the date of petition, even she failed to prosecute the matter and cause dismissed for default and restored after lapse of time and did not prosecute in leading evidence, the trial Court should have awarded maintenance only from the date of order that too without reasons, the award from the date of petition, hence to allow the revision setting aside the order and reduce the order of the maintenance to the child. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the same, whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-wife and the minor child that the impugned order no way requires interference that too while sitting in the revision within the limited scope and even on factual matrix from the husband having a duty bound to maintain the wife and child and any pretence of taking the wife to join is only for bringing on paper sake without real intention for the wife refusal to join, hence to dismiss the petition. 3) Perused the material on record. 4) Now, the points that arise for consideration are (i) Whether the impugned order of learned Family Court Judge covered by order dated 05.02.2014 is not sustainable and to what extent this Court to interfere while sitting in revision against revision? (ii) To what relief? 3) Perused the material on record. 4) Now, the points that arise for consideration are (i) Whether the impugned order of learned Family Court Judge covered by order dated 05.02.2014 is not sustainable and to what extent this Court to interfere while sitting in revision against revision? (ii) To what relief? POINT No.(i): 5) From the relationship is not in dispute, the trial Court also in the elaborate discussion of the order with reference to the factual matrix, no doubt for granting maintenance from the date of order no reasons required if at all from the date of petition, reasons are required to be given, no reasons given that too even when there is a delay and lapse on the part of the diligent prosecution of the matter by cause dismissed for default and also in subsequent restoration and disposal that is one of the grounds for taking into consideration. However, coming to the factual matrix in other respects for the wife to claim that the husband alienated or created documents of alleged alienation for his property of Ac.2-50 cents that is also part of his means as also admitted his brother equally got another Ac.2-50 cents and also his father Ac.1-00 in the so called division between them. Apart from it, the acquittence register of his salary getting as a part time lecturer in the law college for teaching the subject in Economics from the year 2008 concerned, a perusal shows he was getting hardly Rs.6,000/- per month earlier even Rs.3,000/- per month and gradually now increased and for some years it show there could be no continuous 30 days salary as what he is getting is for the days working and in all what all show he is getting maximum Rs.6,000/- per month where there is working days of the college other than for the vacations. Needless to say where any other lecturer failed to attend and he was required to take additional class, he was being paid a small additional amount even taken consideration of that. So far as means from the alleged income of the property concerned, despite the revision petition disputed even before trial Court, there is no certain material muchless by filing any revenue records on ownership and even the adangals as to nature of crops raised, persons in possession and its yield which requires to be reflected to assess. So far as means from the alleged income of the property concerned, despite the revision petition disputed even before trial Court, there is no certain material muchless by filing any revenue records on ownership and even the adangals as to nature of crops raised, persons in possession and its yield which requires to be reflected to assess. Even taken into consideration of the entire material on record with reference to what is discussed supra what the lower Court awarded of Rs.2,500/-per month to the wife is on high side even awarding of maintenance by holding entitlement by the wife. So far as awarding to the child aged about 5 years even by then at Rs.1,500/- per month from date of the petition concerned it no way requires interference by sitting in revision in re-appreciation of the evidence. So far as the wifes maintenance on the contention of ought to have been ordered at best from date of order and not from date of petition, from not entitled from the date of dismissal of the maintenance case till restoration of the maintenance case; from the quantum held to be reduced to Rs.1,500/-per month; needless to say after the marriage laws Amendment in the year 2001 including with sweep change in the Section 125 Cr.P.C by providing for interim maintenance from date of petition, pending adjudication of the case to say by virtue of which it is to say from the date of petition at either as interim maintenance when granted to take into consideration to award regular maintenance from date of order if not from the date of petition itself and thus practically no special reasons are required. The Apex Court in Shail Kumari Devi V. Kishan Bhegwal Pathak (2008(3) ALT (Crl.)171 (SC)= (2008)9 SCC 632 ) held that view of the single Judge of this Court in K.Sivaram V. K.Mangalamba (1990 CrlJ 188 (AP)) of reasons required for awarding maintenance from date of petition is not correct and it is to be awarded generally from date of petition and the same is also quoted with approval in the later expression in Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena (2014(3) ALT (Crl.) 16 (SC)). Accordingly point No.i is answered. Accordingly point No.i is answered. POINT No.(ii) 6) In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed by reducing the maintenance awarded to the wife from Rs.2,500/- per month to Rs.1,500/-per month by upholding maintenance awarded to the child at Rs.1,500/- per month to say at Rs.1,500/-per month to each from date of the Petition for maintenance. The revision petitioner is granted time to deposit/pay arrears of maintenance in six equal monthly installments. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.