JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. 1. Heard Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent and Shri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3. 2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.341 of 2009 by which the learned Judge, on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, has allowed maintenance @ Rs.6,000/­ per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.4,000/­ per month to opposite party no.3 from the date of application. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the court below has granted maintenance without application of mind, as the gross salary of the revisionist was about 26,000/­ per month, and therefore, learned court below has misconstrued the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned judgment. It was further submitted that version of opposite party no.2 was not supported by any documentary evidence. It was further submitted that the revisionist is already paying maintenance amount @ Rs.2,500/­ under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to opposite party no.2.Page No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the revision and submitted in chorus that revisionist is software engineer and is earning about Rs.50,000/­ per month and keeping in view this income, the maintenance awarded by the court below is not at all excessive. party no.2 has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter. It was submitted she was being mentally and physically harassed by her in­laws and on account of this she had to returned to her parents house in a only cloth, she was wearing. 5. From a perusal of the judgment of the family court, it is clear that the marriage has been admitted. It is revealed that when opposite party no.2 went back to her parents, the revisionist filed an application in which they entered into compromise and opposite party no.2 started living with the revisionist from December, 2008, but during that stay she was again tortured for dowry, and was asked to bring dowry from her father, and due to this since March, 2009 opposite party no.2 is living with her parents along with her daughter – opposite party no.3. 6. 6. The instant revision only two points have been submitted no.1. the amount of maintenance is excessive and the award has wrongly been allowed from the date of application. In the case of Ram Kishan Vs. State and Others 2000(2) JIC 391 Allahabad, this Court has held that where no reasons have been recorded for awarding maintenance from the date of application then the order is liable to be modified to the extend that maintenance awarded shall be payable from the date of judgment. Again, in the case of Shiv Nath Vs. State of U.P. & Others. 1999(2) JIC 365 (Allahabad). This Court has held that when Page No.3 no reasons has been assigned by Family Court for passing the order of maintenance from the date of application then the order is bad and reliable to be modified from the date of judgment. In the case of Islam @ Islamuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Others. 2001(2)JIC 19 (Allahabad) has held that the parties behind application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not to allow any vogarance the life of married women or ignore child which has not been any woman right to lose it as tools to. 7. A perusal of Section 125 (1) goes to show that Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the order of maintenance shall be payable from the date of order but for special reasons it can be ordered from the date of application. This clearly means that if maintenance is awarded from the date of application then there must be some special reason. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no special reasons has been assigned for granting maintenance from the date of application. There is nothing on record to show that disposal of this application was delayed by the delaying tactics of the husband. In view of this, the order granting maintenance from the date of application is erroneous and liable to be modified. 8. So far as the amount is concerned, the wife has, in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stated that revisionist is earning a salary of approximately Rs.50,000/­ per month. The revisionist has in the objection filed has stated that he is earning about he is Rs.14,955/­ per month. Salary certificate of the revisionist is on record. This goes to show that total salary is about 25,791/­ excluding, medical allowance, travel allowance, performance based incentive. The revisionist has in the objection filed has stated that he is earning about he is Rs.14,955/­ per month. Salary certificate of the revisionist is on record. This goes to show that total salary is about 25,791/­ excluding, medical allowance, travel allowance, performance based incentive. The family court has written a letter to the employer of the revisionist Page No.4 about latest salary slip. In reply to that, above certificate was sent. Salary slip of month of April 2011, May 2011,June 2011, July 2011, August 2011, has also been filed. The salary is different in each month, in the month of April, 2011, it is 25,243/­ excluding deduction of Rs.2,587/­, in the month of May, 2011, it is 25,243/­ excluding deduction of Rs.2,497/­,in the month of June, 2011, it is 42,235/­ excluding deduction of Rs.4,271/­. This salary includes performance incentive Rs.15,348/­in the month of June, 2011. In the month of July, 2011, it is 25,791/­ with deduction of Rs.2,713/­,in the month of August, 2011, it is 34,493/­ with deduction of Rs.3,943/­ so the net pay was Rs.30,550/­ so the total salary for that period comes to Rs.1,53,005/­ so the monthly average salary comes to Rs.30,601/. 9. Further salary certificate of the opposite party has also been filed according to which net salary of the Month of July, 2012 is Rs.19,863/­,net salary of the Month of August, 2012 is Rs.22,059/­,net salary of the Month of September,2012 is Rs.19,863/­,net salary of the Month of October, 2012 is Rs.19,863/­,net salary of the Month of November, 2012 is Rs.19,863/­,net salary of the Month of December, 2012 is Rs.29,082/­,net salary of the Month of January, 2013 is Rs.19,863/­, net salary of the Month of February, 2013 is Rs.19,863/­,net salary of the Month of March, 2013 is Rs.28,087/­,net salary of the Month of April, 2013 is Rs.19,716/­,net salary of the Month of January, 2013 is Rs.19,704/­. The total salary for this period comes to Rs.2,37,826/­. It is also worth noting that the revisionist is apart from monthly provident fund also getting Rs.4,175/­ deducted from his salary as voluntary provident fund. Average salary of the above period, including the voluntary provident fund deduction comes to about Page No.5 Rs.26,000/­ per month. The learned Family Court should have treated this amount on which the monthly maintenance amount was to be calculated. Generally 1/4th of the salary can be fixed for awarding maintenance. Average salary of the above period, including the voluntary provident fund deduction comes to about Page No.5 Rs.26,000/­ per month. The learned Family Court should have treated this amount on which the monthly maintenance amount was to be calculated. Generally 1/4th of the salary can be fixed for awarding maintenance. Hence, the amount of maintenance cannot exceed Rs.6500/­ approximately. The amount fixed by learned Family Court is also liable to be modified. 10. Out of this amount wife is entitled to get monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/­ and the minor children is entitled to maintenance of Rs.2500/­ per month. This amount is payable from the date of order not from the date of application. It is also made clear that if wife is getting any maintenance amount by any order passed under Domestic Violence Act, then the amount shall be deducted from the maintenance amount fixed by the Court. 11. Criminal revision is liable to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed with modification made above.