JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed: i. The impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Learned Family Court, Rajsamand (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 22/2018 (Smt. Seema Pareekh & ors. v. Shri Gopal Pareekh) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii. The monthly maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) may kindly be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). iii. The monthly maintenance may kindly be ordered from the date of filing of the application (i.e. 23.03.2018)." 2. As revealed from the aforequoted prayer clauses, this Criminal Revision Petition assails the order dated 31.01.2020, passed by the learned Family Court, Rajasamand in Smt. Seema Pareekh & Ors. v. Shri Gopal Pareekh, Case No. 22/2018, while seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs. 11,000/-, as granted to the revisionist-petitioners (wife, son and daughter, respectively, of the respondent) by the learned Court below. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submited that the revisionist-petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned court below on 23.03.2018, stating therein that the revisionist-petitioner no. 1, Smt. Seema Pareek (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') and the respondent, Shri Gopal Pareek (hereinafter referred to as 'the husband') entered into the wedlock, as per Hindu rituals and customs, on 15.01.2007, and that, out of the said wedlock, two children were born to them, a son, i.e. revisionist-petitioner no. 2 and a daughter, i.e. revisionist-petitioner no. 3; the age of the children was 10 years and 05 years respectively, on the date of passing of the impugned order, and that the respondent-husband deserted the revisionist-petitioners since the last five years from filing of the said application. 3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that after marriage, the husband and his family members began harassing the wife, which continued when she was pregnant with their son. And that the same continued despite the husband and wife moving to Indore, and that therefore, she had to move back to her maternal home on 05.03.2016. 3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that after marriage, the husband and his family members began harassing the wife, which continued when she was pregnant with their son. And that the same continued despite the husband and wife moving to Indore, and that therefore, she had to move back to her maternal home on 05.03.2016. 3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the wife does not have any independent source of income and that she is not in a position to financially sustain herself and her two children. And that, the husband in fact has a shop in Kota, Rajasthan from which he earns a yearly rent of about Rs. 2 Lakhs, and also owns about 39 bighas of land, an agricultural farm which has housing of about 15-20 rooms and shops outside, from which he generates a monthly income of about Rs. 50,000/- 3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that looking into the income and holdings of the husband, the wife sought a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for children and herself under Section 125 Cr.P.C. application filed before the learned Family Court below. And that in response to the same, the husband, while denying the averments made by the wife, stated that he has already opened an FDR in the name of the wife, to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- and has also taken an insurance policy for their children, for which he is making a premium payment of Rs. 7,767/- annually. 3.4 Learned counsel also submitted that while the learned Court below rightly held that the husband is competent and has the financial capacity to pay a monthly maintenance to the revisionist- petitioners, it incorrectly and without any cogent reasoning or justification awarded a meagre amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month. 3.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has gravely erred not only in the determination of the amount of the monthly maintenance, as mentioned hereinabove, but also in directing that the said sum be payable from the date of order and not from the date of application, which runs contrary to the settled proposition of law. 3.6 Learned counsel also submitted that it is an admitted position, as also stated in the cross-examnation of the husband, that the wife is bearing the educational expenses of their children, despite not being in a financially sound position. And that therefore, a sum of Rs. 3.6 Learned counsel also submitted that it is an admitted position, as also stated in the cross-examnation of the husband, that the wife is bearing the educational expenses of their children, despite not being in a financially sound position. And that therefore, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards each child has been insufficiently determined. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband opposed the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioners, and submits that the impugned order, determining the monthly amount of maintenance payable by the respondent-husband to the revisionist-petitioners has been rightly passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on record before it. 4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the wife was maintained by her husband and family well, and that she was not ill-treated, at any point of time, as alleged. 4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the wife is a qualified professional, who holds M.A. degree, and has completed a computer course as well, and apart therefrom, she has enough earning out of the teaching job in a private school. 4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the husband secured a job in the year 2012, working in a company called Geeta Packaging, and at that time, the wife was suffering from mental health issues, and that on many occasions, she used to become aggressive; she was also suffering from nausea and would become obsessive about washing her hands. And that, in the year 2014, he began her treatment. 4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the wife had told the husband that she had these mental health issues since childhood, and that the husband always stood by her and incurred heavy expenditure towards her treatment. And that, he also enrolled his children in Annie Besant School, an English medium school in Indore. Furthermore, although he was unable to sustain the above mentioned expenditures, given that he was earning a meager monthly salary and therefore was in fact, taking financial assistance from his father, who used to send him about Rs.3,000/- to 4,000/- and sometimes his sister would also provide him with some financial assistance. 4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that while they used to reside in Kota, he had managed to amass savings to the tune of Rs. 4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that while they used to reside in Kota, he had managed to amass savings to the tune of Rs. 52,000/-, which he utilized to open a fixed deposit in the name of the wife, and that the value of the same as on date of passing the impugned order was about Rs.85,000/- And that, he had also opened a recurring deposit, in which he makes monthly deposits of Rs. 500/- in the Grameen Bank, Kota for his son, and that he had also taken an insurance policy for his children, toward which he was, and is still, making an annual premium payment of Rs. 7,767/- And that he also had made two additional fixed deposits of Rs. 26,000 and the other Rs. 90,000, the latter being on the name of their son. 4.6 Learned counsel also submitted that in the year 2016, it was at the instance of the wife who said that she would take their children, since their exams had ended and they had vacations from their school, to her maternal home at Kankaroli for a few days. And that, subsequently, when the husband called her and asked them to return, since their vacation was over, it was then, the wife informed him that she had in fact enrolled their children in a local school, and that the husband should collect the T.C. from their old school and send it to her. And that, keeping in mind the well being of his children, he finally acquiesced and sent her their T.C. from the previous school. 4.7 Learned counsel further submitted that the mental health of the husband, due to the sequence of events as discussed hereinabove, deteriorated and that he was suffering from depression. And that, instead of living alone in Indore, he decided to resign from his job and returned to live with his parents. 5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 6. This Court finds that the learned Court below has fairly awarded the amount of Rs. 11,000/- payable as monthly maintenance, by the husband to his wife and children, of which the Court below has decreed Rs. 5,000/- towards the wife, and Rs. 5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 6. This Court finds that the learned Court below has fairly awarded the amount of Rs. 11,000/- payable as monthly maintenance, by the husband to his wife and children, of which the Court below has decreed Rs. 5,000/- towards the wife, and Rs. 3,000/- each towards each of their two children, after looking into the husband's monthly income and property holdings, and the investments, fixed deposits, insurance policies, which he has made in the name of his wife and children. 7. This Court observes that the learned Court below has rightly determined the financial standing of the husband, based on evidences placed on the record before it, at Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4, land revenue record which reveal that the husband's father, Mr. Suresh Kumar, had 20 bighas of land and had a joint holding of 57.17 bighas in which he had a 1/3 rd share. And that, the photographs placed on the record, at Ex. P/9, reveal that the husband and his family cultivate their agricultural land, as discussed hereinabove, and grow crops on the same. 8. This Court further observes that the learned Court below has rightly held that although the relationship between the husband and wife may have soured, there appears that there was once love and concern for the wife and his children by the husband, as is revealed from the fixed deposits made by him in the name of his wife, to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- and that he was making monthly deposits of Rs. 500 in a recurring deposit in the Grameen Bank, Kota, for their son, amongst other investments. 9. This Court also observes that the learned Court below has justly held that only because the wife is a qualified professional, she is not dis-entitled to seek maintenance for herself and her children from her husband, further fortified by the fact that she is unemployed, while her husband has the financial capacity to sustain them financially. 10. This Court therefore observes that the learned Court below has fairly arrived at determining an amount of Rs.11,000/- monthly maintenance payable by the respondent to the revisionist-petitioners. 11. However, this Court finds that the learned Court below has erred in holding that the said amount of total monthly maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- payable by the respondent to the revisionist-petitioners, Rs. This Court therefore observes that the learned Court below has fairly arrived at determining an amount of Rs.11,000/- monthly maintenance payable by the respondent to the revisionist-petitioners. 11. However, this Court finds that the learned Court below has erred in holding that the said amount of total monthly maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- payable by the respondent to the revisionist-petitioners, Rs. 5,000/- towards the wife, and Rs.3,000/- towards each of their children, would be payable from the date of the impugned order. This a clear deviation from the settled position of law, that maintenance be awarded from the date of application, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 . 12. Thus, this Court, in light of the above made observations, partly allows the present revision petition, and while maintaining the amount of Rs. 11,000/- monthly maintenance awarded to the revisionist-petitioners payable by the husband, makes a limited interference in the impugned order, and directs that the said amount of maintenance shall be payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist- petitioners, instead of, from the date of the impugned order dated 31.01.2020, as directed by the learned Court below. All pending applications stand disposed of.