JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Petitioner before this Court is the minor daughter of respondent-Vishal Dharwal and Smt. Raman Kumari. She was born on 14.11.2007. An application was filed by the petitioner through her mother, i.e., her next friend and natural guardian in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Una, Distt. Una, H.P., under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for grant of maintenance in her favour from the respondent @ Rs. 20,000/- per month as also amount of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. Vide order dated 6.10.2015, Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, (IV), Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘JMIC, Una’) allowed the petition so filed by the present petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms:- “In view of my finding supra, present petition is, hereby, partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of RS. 8,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of this order. The respondent is also directed to pay litigation expenses of these proceedings to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner through her mother free of cost. Accordingly, the petition in hand stands disposed of. After doing needful, file be consigned to record room.” 2. This order was challenged by way of appeal by the present petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the amount of maintenance was on a lower side and further the learned court had erred in not granting maintenance in favour of the petitioner form the date of filing of the petition. 3. Vide order dated 31.8.2016 so passed in Cr. Appeal/Revision No. 21/2016, learned appellate court dismissed the same by upholding the order passed by the Court of learned JMIC, Una both on quantum as well as to from which date the petitioner was entitled to maintenance. 4. These two orders stand assailed before this Court by way of present petition, inter alia, on the ground that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- awarded as maintenance is meager and the same be accordingly enhanced and further that the amount of maintenance be ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments passed by learned courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgments passed by learned courts below. 6. It is not in dispute that the earning of respondent at the time when the petition was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner was more than Rs. 40,000/- per month in his capacity as a government employee serving at Subsidiary Health Centre Batwara, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab). It is also not in dispute that mother of the petitioner is also a government servant, who is serving as a doctor and her monthly income at the relevant time was more than Rs. 58,000/- per month. 7. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that the finding returned by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una to the effect that the petitioner was entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C has not been assailed by the respondent neither he has assailed the amount of maintenance which stands awarded by the said Court. 8. A perusal of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una demonstrates that while awarding an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as expenses it stood held by the said Court that there was nothing on record to show that respondent was contributing anything towards the maintenance of the petitioner and as the petitioner was a school going child and as none was dependent upon the respondent, he could easily spare Rs. 8,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner. 9. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, inter alia, provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his minor child, then a Magistrate of 1st Class, may upon such proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of such child, as such Magistrate thinks fit. 10. Records reveal that the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 14.6.2011. Notice on the same was issued to the respondent No. 23.6.2011 for 17.8.2011. On said date, the respondent was not present, therefore, he was again ordered to be served for 19.10.2011. Again on 19.10.2011, respondent was not present and case was adjourned for 26.12.2011. Notice on the same was issued to the respondent No. 23.6.2011 for 17.8.2011. On said date, the respondent was not present, therefore, he was again ordered to be served for 19.10.2011. Again on 19.10.2011, respondent was not present and case was adjourned for 26.12.2011. On subsequent dates also, respondent was not present and on 7.5.2012 again Court directed the service of the respondent for 28.7.2012. On 30.10.2012 respondent put in appearance through his counsel and was granted time to file reply to the application. 11. Two issues which call for adjudication in the present petition are as to whether amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month ordered by learned court below as maintenance in favour of the present petitioner is an adequate amount and as to whether learned court below erred in not granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application. 12. Undoubtedly, both the parents of petitioner are government servants. Whereas mother of the petitioner is stated to be a doctor, who earns monthly salary in excess of Rs. 58,000/- per month approximately, her father is also a government employee, who at the time when the application was decided, was earning approximately an amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is a matter of record that respondent before this court, who is the father of the petitioner, had given his willingness to look after and maintain the petitioner if custody of the petitioner is handed over to him. It has also come on record as is evident from the orders which stand assailed before this court that respondent has no other liability save and except what he owes towards the upkeep of petitioner who is his minor child. The date of birth of the petitioner is 14.11.2007, meaning thereby as of now she is 10 years old. Statement of the mother of the petitioner which was recorded before the learned court below on 20.5.2014 demonstrates that at the relevant time, the petitioner was a student of second class and was studying in Chandigarh. This means that as of now, the petitioner should be undergoing her education at Chandigarh, has not been disputed before me. 13. In my considered view, petitioner is entitled for grant of maintenance which is befitting to confer upon her status of a child as if she was residing with both her parents. This means that as of now, the petitioner should be undergoing her education at Chandigarh, has not been disputed before me. 13. In my considered view, petitioner is entitled for grant of maintenance which is befitting to confer upon her status of a child as if she was residing with both her parents. Though income of mother admittedly at the time when the application was decided by the learned court below was approximately Rs. 58,000/- per month but then this court cannot lose sight of the fact that she has been single handedly taking care of the petitioner and the respondent owes an equal obligation towards the petitioner as far as her upbringing and maintenance is concerned. Therefore, in my considered view grant of maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month by the learned court below is on a lower side. Petitioner is at least entitled for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the respondent who happens to be her father. Such an amount is not only reasonable, but is not on the higher side from the perspective of the respondent also, because a father who is earning in excess of Rs. 40,000/- per month is at least expected to spend an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month towards his only daughter especially when the said respondent has no other liability as are the findings returned by the learned courts below. Therefore while holding that the maintenance granted by learned court below in favour of the present petitioner is on the lower side, the same is enhanced from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. 14. Now this Court will deal with the issue as to whether the learned trial court erred in not granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application or whether the order so passed by learned trial court that maintenance be granted from the date of order is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. As mentioned above also, records of the case demonstrate that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the present petition before the learned trial court on 22.6.2011. Respondent appeared before the Court on 30.10.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that previous orders passed by the Court dated 17.8.2011, 19.10.2011, 26.12.2011 and 19.3.2012 demonstrate that it stands mentioned in these orders qua the presence of the respondent as under, “respondent not present”. 15. Respondent appeared before the Court on 30.10.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that previous orders passed by the Court dated 17.8.2011, 19.10.2011, 26.12.2011 and 19.3.2012 demonstrate that it stands mentioned in these orders qua the presence of the respondent as under, “respondent not present”. 15. Be that as it may, after the respondent appeared before the Court on 30.10.2012, it took the Court almost three years to decide the application. 16. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385 that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, i.e., from the date of filing of the application or from the date of the announcement of the order having regard to the relevant facts. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that for good reason evident from its order, the Court may choose either date and that it was neither appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply states that maintenance should be paid from either of the date in matters of maintenance. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that as per Section 354(6) of Cr.P.C., the court should record reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities. The purpose of the provision is to prevent vagrancy and destitution in society and the court must apply its mind to the options having regard to the facts of the particular case. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and others, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 353 has held as under:- “15. After referring to the decision in Krishna Jain, the Supreme Court adverted to the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba wherein it has been ruled that the maintenance would be awarded from the date of the order and such maintenance could be granted from the date of the application only by recording special reasons. The view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that it is a normal rule that the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application for maintenance was not accepted by this Court. The view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that it is a normal rule that the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application for maintenance was not accepted by this Court. Eventually the Court ruled: (Shail Kumari Devi case, SCC p. 647, para 43) “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 subsection (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect.” 16. In the present case, as we find, there was enormous delay in disposal of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code and most of the time the husband had taken adjournments and sometimes the court dealt with the matter showing total laxity. The wife sustained herself as far as she could in that state for a period of nine years. The circumstances, in our considered opinion, required grant of maintenance from the date of application and by so granting the High Court has not committed any legal infirmity. Hence, we concur with the order of the high Court. However, we direct, as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, that he may be allowed to pay the arrears along with the maintenance awarded at present in a phased manner. The learned counsel for the respondents did not object to such an arrangement being made. In view of the aforesaid, we direct that while paying the maintenance as fixed by the learned Family Court Judge per month by 5th of each succeeding month, the arrears shall be paid in a proportionate manner within a period of three years from today.” 18. In view of the aforesaid, we direct that while paying the maintenance as fixed by the learned Family Court Judge per month by 5th of each succeeding month, the arrears shall be paid in a proportionate manner within a period of three years from today.” 18. Coming to the facts of present case, in my considered view, it was a fit case where learned court below should have had ordered grant of maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that learned court below had the discretion to grant maintenance from either of the two dates, but taking into consideration the fact that the applicant before the Court was a minor daughter of the respondent and further that respondent had no other obligation/liability and was gainfully employed as a government servant and earning monthly wages in excess of Rs. 40,000/- per month, this very important aspect of the matter has escaped the learned trial court while granting maintenance from the date of application. Disposal of the application before the learned trial court itself took a considerable long time. Records of the learned trial court demonstrate that delay in adjudication of the same is also attributable to the respondent. Therefore also in my considered view, it was a fit case wherein the maintenance ought to have been ordered from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of order, as was done by the learned trial court. Petitioner being the minor daughter of the respondent was at least entitled for maintenance from her father under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the date of filing of the application and in the absence of there being anything on record from which it can be inferred that the petitioner was having sufficient means to sustain herself during the said period, interest of justice demanded the grant of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Even if the mother of the petitioner was gainfully employed and having reasonable income, then also, liability and the responsibility to maintain his daughter by providing her maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was not whittled down. Accordingly, in view of findings returned above, this petition is allowed. Even if the mother of the petitioner was gainfully employed and having reasonable income, then also, liability and the responsibility to maintain his daughter by providing her maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was not whittled down. Accordingly, in view of findings returned above, this petition is allowed. Order passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. IV, Una, dated 06.10.2015, as confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Una, is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled for maintenance from the date, the application was so filed by her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and further she shall be entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month instead of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Arrears shall be paid by the respondent in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from today, failing which respondent shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of this judgment in favour of the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.