JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri Manoj Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. 2. This criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 7.10.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya in Misc. Case No.84 of 2013, granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C @ Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- in all Rs.3,000/-, per month to the wife and child respectively, from the date of application. 3. It is contended that the maintenance ought not to have been awarded from the date of application. 4. The marriage between the parties and the birth of the child, is not disputed. If that be so, Rs.3,000/- in all, as maintenance, cannot by any stretch, be said to be exorbitant. The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha, 2015 (2) SCC 99 has held that the High Court should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of maintenance. 5. The Apex Court further in the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another, 2015 (2) SCC 385 , has held that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is to grant maintenance either from the date of the application or the date of order, but reasons have to be recorded in choosing either of the aforesaid options. 6. It is not the case of the applicant that the delay was attributable to the wife, as the wife has not been paid any amount whatsoever as she has been living with her parents since her alleged ouster, thus the payability of maintenance w.e.f the date of application, could not be faulted. No other plea is urged. The revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.