JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. By this application under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, read with Sections 19(4)and 10(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner prays for modification of the order dated 30.09.2003 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnrup at Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994 to grant maintenance to the petitioner with effect from 29.04.1994 instead of with effect from 24.02.2003 @ Rs. 500/- per month and also for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2009 passed in F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnrup at Guwahati. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The case was, accordingly, heard on 22.01.2014. As the hearing was not concluded, the same was directed to be listed as a part-heard case. Accordingly, the matter has been listed today. It appears that an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner when the matter had remained heard-in-part. 2. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner/first party and Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the opposite party/second party. 3. Mr. Bordoloi has submitted that in the additional affidavit, apart from enclosing certain orders of the Court relating to the proceeding in question, some statements have been made with regard to the current income of the petitioner and therefore, he would like to file a response to the additional affidavit. When Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel responded by saying that he will not rely upon the statements made in the additional affidavit regarding the current income of the opposite party/respondent and would only refer to and rely upon the orders enclosed, Mr. Bordoloi has submitted that in that event, he will not pray for time to file an affidavit/objection to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. 4. Facts, as set out in the revision application, which are relevant for the purpose of this case are that the petitioner, when she was in the family way, filed an application under section 125 of the Code before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Guwahati on 29.04.1994 claiming maintenance of Rs. 1,200/- per month from the opposite parry. The said case was registered as F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994. 5. 1,200/- per month from the opposite parry. The said case was registered as F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994. 5. A male child was born to her at her parental home on 20.07.1994. After the birth of the child, the petitioner filed an application dated 09.02.1995 claiming additional maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month for the child and thus, the total claim for maintenance was Rs. 1,600/- per month. The respondent filed written statement contesting the claim of the petitioner and also denying the paternity of the child. 6. During trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and four witnesses were examined by the opposite party. The learned Trial Court, by a judgment and order dated 05.09.1998, holding that the petitioner was pregnant before her Nikah with the second party and she was divorced legally on 23.04.1994, observed that neither the petitioner nor her child was entitled to any maintenance. However, an amount of Rs. 3,500/- comprising of Rs. 1,005/- as Mahr, Rs. 1,500/- only as maintenance during the iddat period and Rs. 500/- only as other costs were granted to the petitioner. 7. The aforesaid order dated 05.09.1998 was set aside by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 446/1998 by an order dated 17.11.1999 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 8. After remand, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati, by a judgment and order dated 24.07.2000, granted maintenance @ Rs. 450/- per month to the child with effect from 18.07.1996 but declined to grant any maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that the application under section 125 of the Code is not maintainable at the instance of a Muslim divorced woman. The child was granted maintenance with effect from 10.07.1996 as the child was found to have entered 3rd year of his life on 10.07.1996. 9. The aforesaid judgment was challenged before this Court to the extent of refusal to grant maintenance to the petitioner by filing an appeal, registered as that Appeal No. 12/2000. This appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 02.11.2000. 10. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the petitioner by filing S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 590/2001, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1222/2001. The appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.12.2001 as follows: "ORDER Leave granted. This appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 02.11.2000. 10. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the petitioner by filing S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 590/2001, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1222/2001. The appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.12.2001 as follows: "ORDER Leave granted. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in 2001 (7) SCC - 740 Danial Latifi & Anr. vs. Union of India the matter has to be considered by the trial Court afresh. For that purpose we set aside the order passed by the trial magistrate and the High Court and remit the case to the trial court for disposal of the claim afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." Thus, in view of the above order of the Apex Court, the case was required to be tried by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 11. The petitioner filed a petition being petition No. 276/2003 dated 24.02.2003 in Case No. F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994 requesting the Court to try the case afresh in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.12.2001. 12. The learned Trial Court granted opportunities to both the sides to adduce fresh evidence but they declined to bring in fresh evidence. Thereafter, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati, on consideration of the materials on record, held by judgment and order dated 30.9.2003 that the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from her husband. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "Therefore, the prayer for maintenance is allowed. Accordingly, the 2nd party Md. Rustam Ali Bhuyan is hereby directed to pay maintenance of his former wife, Mrs. Jaharana Begum @ Rs. 500/- p.m. from the date of this petition i.e. 24/02/03." 13. The petitioner filed a petition on 14.11.2003 before the learned Trial Court praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay arrear amount of Rs. 52,917.50 only for 8 years 9 months and 25 days i.e. from 29.04.1994 to 23.02.2003, that is to say, from the date of original application to the date prior to the date from which maintenance was directed to be paid by the learned Trial Court. This application came to be rejected by an order dated 29.08.2009 holding that the opposite party was regularly paying maintenance of Rs. This application came to be rejected by an order dated 29.08.2009 holding that the opposite party was regularly paying maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner since 24.02.2003 in terms of the order dated 30.09.2003 and the Court cannot alter its earlier order directing payment of maintenance from 24.02.2003. 14. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the opposite party stating that by an order dated 15.12.2010, the learned Family Court had enhanced the monthly maintenance to the petitioner and her son from Rs. 1,600/- per month to Rs. 3,500/- per month. It is further stated that the petitioner is a business woman and earns about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The petitioner had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 382/2009 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamrup at Guwahati, praying for a declaration that the Talaknama dated 23.04.1994 executed by the opposite party against her is illegal and inoperative in law and the suit as well as the appeal preferred were dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner is a lady of immoral character and she had unholy relationship with one Hamid. It is also averred that the child attained majority on 20.07.2012 and yet the petitioner was drawing maintenance in the name of her son. An application was filed by the opposite party under section 127 of the Code praying for alteration of the order of maintenance as the child had attained majority. 15. From the reply-affidavit, it becomes clear that by an order passed on 01.12.2006, the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 1,600/- per month to the petitioner for herself and her minor child. This amount was again enhanced to Rs. 3,500/- per month, as contended by the opposite party, by an order dated 14.12.2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati. It appears that the petitioner is presently receiving maintenance of Rs. 1,750/- per month as the son had attained majority in the meantime. 16. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been fighting a legal battle for maintenance from the year 1994 and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court ought not to have taken the date of fling of application for maintenance as 24.02.2003. 1,750/- per month as the son had attained majority in the meantime. 16. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been fighting a legal battle for maintenance from the year 1994 and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court ought not to have taken the date of fling of application for maintenance as 24.02.2003. It is submitted by him that the Apex Court had remitted the case to the Trial Court for disposal of the claim afresh in accordance with law and therefore, the Trial Court was adjudicating the application filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance on 29.04.1994. It is submitted by him that the application dated 24.02.2003 was an application for early disposal of the case as after the judgment rendered by the Apex Court on 03.12.2001, the case was not proceeding further. The learned counsel submits that there is no justification for denying the claim of the petitioner for grant of maintenance of Rs. 500/- with effect from the date of her application dated 29.04.1994 under Section 125 of the Code. 17. Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the opposite party, submits that in any view of the matter, prior to amendment of section 125 of the Code with effect from 24.09.2001, maintenance exceeding Rs. 500/- per month could not have been granted and admittedly, the son of the petitioner was receiving maintenance @ Rs. 450/- per month on and from 10.07.1996. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out by the petitioner for grant of maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month for the period 29.04.1994 to 24.02.2003. The learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 632 . 18. Before I proceed further, it would be appropriate to refer to sub-section 1 and 2 of section 125 of the Code as they were originally enacted in 1973. The said subsections read as follows: "125. 18. Before I proceed further, it would be appropriate to refer to sub-section 1 and 2 of section 125 of the Code as they were originally enacted in 1973. The said subsections read as follows: "125. Order of maintenance of wives, children and parents, - (1) If any person having 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 illegitimate 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, 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 not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: provided that 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. Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) 'minor' means a person who, under 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 married. (2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance." (emphasis supplied) 19. From a reading of section 125(1), it becomes clear that maximum amount which could be ordered to be paid was Rs. 500/- per month which is clear from the expression "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole". 20. It is also evident from section 125(2) that such maintenance could be made payable "from the date of the order" or "if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance". 21. 500/- per month which is clear from the expression "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole". 20. It is also evident from section 125(2) that such maintenance could be made payable "from the date of the order" or "if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance". 21. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001), sub-sections (1) and (2) came to be amended with effect from 24.09.2001. The amended sub-sections now read thus: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. - (1) If any person having 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 or any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, 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 family 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 purpose 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." (emphasis supplied) 22. With the coming into force of the aforesaid amendments, the ceiling of Rs. 500/- per month fixed under the original enactment has been taken away and now it is open to a Court to fix such monthly amount as the Magistrate thinks fit. 23. The question as to from which date a Magistrate may order payment of maintenance to wife, child or parents in exercise of powers under section 125(2) of the Code was considered in the case of Shall Kumari Devi (Supra). The Apex Court noted that there was cleavage of opinion on the question among different High Courts. Some High Courts had taken the view that normal rule is that a Magistrate should pass an order directing payment of maintenance only from the date of the order and if he decides to deviate that course and make an order granting maintenance not from the date of the order but from the date of application for maintenance, he must record reasons in support of such order. It was also held that in absence of special circumstances, maintenance cannot be ordered from the date of application. According to the other view, maintenance should be granted from the date of the application and not from the date of the order. If the Magistrate is inclined to make an order granting maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of application, he should record reasons for doing so. 24. The Apex Court resolved the conundrum in Shall Kumari Devi (Supra) by holding as follows: "41. Moreover, duration of litigation is not within the power or in the hands of the applicant and entitlement to maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. 24. The Apex Court resolved the conundrum in Shall Kumari Devi (Supra) by holding as follows: "41. Moreover, duration of litigation is not within the power or in the hands of the applicant and entitlement to maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. Keeping in view this hard reality, this Court in Savitri held that in absence of prohibition to grant "interim" maintenance such power could be read in the salutary provision of Section 125 of the Code ensuring maintenance to unable (sic enable) the wife to maintain herself during the pendency of proceedings. Even Parliament took into account the reality and by the Amendment Act, 2001 express provision has been made for the purpose. 42. Again, maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of "special reasons" though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him. 43. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 25. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 25. From the above, it is clear that maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. No special reasons are required to be recorded by the Court for awarding maintenance from the date of the application. 26. The petitioner was granted maintenance by the judgment and order dated 30.09.2003 from 24.02.2003 taking the date "24.02.2003" to be the date of application, which, in reality was not the date of the application for grant of maintenance but was the date on which the petitioner had submitted a petition for early disposal of the case in the light of the order of the Apex Court dated 03.12.2001. To that extent, Mr. Sheikh is correct in submitting that the learned Trial Court was wrong in presuming that the application for grant of maintenance was filed on 24.02.2003. 27. The petitioner, however, did not immediately challenge the said order dated 30.09.2003. However, she filed a petition before the learned Trial Court praying for a direction to the opposite party to make payment of maintenance from 29.04.1994 to 23.02.2003. Only after the rejection of the said petition by an order dated 29.08.2009, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay of about 6 years, which, however, was condoned by this Court by an order dated 20.05.2013. 28. Prior to the amendment of section 125 of the Code with effect from 24.09.2001, petitioner could not have been granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month at least from 18.07.1996 when her son started getting maintenance of Rs. 450/- per month. The learned Trial Court chose to award maintenance not from the date of the order but from the date of the application, which he wrongly took to be 24.02.2003. 29. The petitioner is pursuing her remedies to get maintenance from the opposite party for close to 20 years. The opposite party is a government servant and when the maintenance amount was fixed at Rs. 29. The petitioner is pursuing her remedies to get maintenance from the opposite party for close to 20 years. The opposite party is a government servant and when the maintenance amount was fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month by the order dated 15.12.2010, the opposite party had a net salary of Rs. 18,145/- per month. The admitted position to-day is that the petitioner is getting a maintenance amount of Rs. 1,750/- per month. 30. Considering the matter in its entirety, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the opposite party is directed to make payment of maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month from the month of October, 2001 as the amendment of section 125 of the Code permitting grant of maintenance exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole had come into effect from 24.09.2001. The order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup dated 30.09.2003 is accordingly modified. The opposite party will pay maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month from October, 2001 to 24.02.2003. This amount which works out to roughly about Rs. 8,500/- in total shall be paid within a period of 3 months from to-day before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. Disposed off