JUDGMENT : This criminal revision petition has been filed by the wife and daughter of opposite-party in Maintenance Case No.191 of 2013. 2. The plea raised by the petitioners is that the order of maintenance should have been made from the date of application and not from the date of the judgment. 3. Section 125 Cr.P.C reads as under: “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 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, 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 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. (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. …...........................................” 4. In the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C, the applicants; wife and daughter of Pradeep Kumar, have examined two witnesses and the petitioner has examined three witnesses. The applicant-wife has claimed that her husband was not providing food and clothes and on 19.05.2007 after assaulting her thrown her along with her daughter out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner is working under Railways is not in dispute. His wife has claimed that his salary is Rs.32,000/- per month and he had additional income of Rs.3 Lac to Rs.4 Lac per annum from agriculture. The petitioner is working under Railways is not in dispute. His wife has claimed that his salary is Rs.32,000/- per month and he had additional income of Rs.3 Lac to Rs.4 Lac per annum from agriculture. She has also claimed that he is getting Rs.10,000/- rental from a shop and her father-in-law is getting pension. In her cross-examination, she admits that till 2007, she was employed as A.N.M. The petitioner has examined himself as a witness and asserted that his salary is Rs.20,000/- per month out of which Rs.3,600/- is spent on bank loan and Rs.3,000/- is spent on his daughter. He is spending about Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- on treatment of his mother. 5. On the basis of the materials produced on record, the learned Family Court Judge has held as under: 14. “From perusal of records, it transpires that as per the version of petitioner and her witnesses, she is lawfully wedded wife of O.P. Petitioner, in her evidence has fully supported the case and the contents of the petition finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 also. It further appears from the record and evidences of petitioner's witnesses that a dowry case was filed by the petitioner against the O.P. The petitioner along with her minor daughter was living separately from O.P about two years, but the O.P has neither looked after her nor gave any maintenance amount. It further appears that the O.P has deposed in his evidence and in his show-cause that the petitioner is doing her job as A.N.M under Jharkhand Government and she is getting sufficient salary from her job, but the O.P did not produce any cogent and reliable evidence regarding employment of petitioner no.1. It further appears that on the basis of compromise between both the parties, on 13-01-2014 this court has directed the O.P to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance amount to the petitioners, but the O.P did not comply the said order. It further appears from the evidences of petitioner and O.P that the O.P is getting Rs.32,000/- per month as his salary and the O.P himself admitted in his evidence that his gross salary is of Rs.24,000/-, which is also corroborated by the salary slip filed by the petitioner and O.P itself. It further appears from the evidences of petitioner and O.P that the O.P is getting Rs.32,000/- per month as his salary and the O.P himself admitted in his evidence that his gross salary is of Rs.24,000/-, which is also corroborated by the salary slip filed by the petitioner and O.P itself. It is also brought to light that the O.P has forsaken the petitioner and willfully neglecting to maintain her and thereby failing to discharge his legal and social obligations. It appears that he is brushing aside his matrimonial responsibility and petitioner is experiencing neglect due to deliberate conduct of O.P. As such, there is sufficient grounds for petitioner no.1 to live separately from O.P. 15. It would be pertinent to point out that Section, 125 Cr.P.C clearly provides that, “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, a Magistrate of the 1st Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife and minor child.” 6. By now, it is well-settled that the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C is a beneficial provision, benefits of which should not be denied on mere technical objections. 7. In the above facts, once the court has found the applicants entitled for maintenance the order of maintenance should relate back to the date on which application under section 125 Cr.P.C has been filed. The reason for this is that in law maintenance is a right which is born the day the marriage is solemnised. In “Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak” reported in (2008) 9 SCC 632 , the Supreme Court has held thus, 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. 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 an envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him.” 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, order dated 06.08.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.191 of 2013 is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioners shall be paid by the opposite-party from the date of application. 9. To the aforesaid extent, Criminal Revision No.1205 of 2015 is allowed.