JUDGMENT : The petitioners have challenged legality of the order dated 13.07.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2013 by which they have been granted maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of application. 2. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of sub-section 2 to section 125 read with section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reasons have to be recorded for not awarding maintenance from the date of the application. To support the claim of the petitioners, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in “Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and Anr. Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr.” reported in 2015 (1) East Cr. C. 186 (SC). 3. Sub-section 2 to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for the 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. A bare reading of sub-section 2 would reveal that maintenance may be payable from the date of the order or it can be ordered from the date of the application. In “Shail Kumari Devi Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak” reported in (2008) 9 SCC 632 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that: “42. ……. 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.” 4. In “Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas” case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly enables the court to grant maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application and for awarding maintenance from the date of application an express order is necessary. In paragraph no. 7 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “7. Section 125 of the Cr. P.C, therefore, impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts. For good reason, evident from its order, the Court may choose either date. In paragraph no. 7 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “7. Section 125 of the Cr. P.C, therefore, impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts. For good reason, evident from its order, the Court may choose either date. It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply states that maintenance should be paid from either the date of the order or the date of the application in matters of maintenance. Thus, as per Section 354 (6) of the 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.” 5. A glance at the order dated 13.07.2016 would reveal that no circumstance was shown to the learned Family Court Judge for grant of maintenance from the date of application. In the present proceeding it is not pleaded by the petitioners that in the application under section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure they have claimed maintenance from the date of the application. The order dated 13.07.2016 does not reflect that any argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled for maintenance from the date of the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application for maintenance was filed in the year, 2013 but it was decided on 13.07.2016 and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for maintenance from the date of the application. This submission is bereft of substance. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 1 of 2013 parties have laid oral evidence. The petitioners have examined four witnesses which obviously would have consumed substantial time. It is not a case set-up by the petitioners that delay in disposal of Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2013 has occasioned not on account of any adjournment sought by them or on count of dialatory tactics of the opposite party. No circumstance has been shown by the petitioners for grant of maintenance from the date of the application. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1303 of 2016 is dismissed.