ORDER : MANEESH SHARMA, J. In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2469/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge No.1, Nagaur whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband has been rejected and the order dated 20.05.2024 was affirmed, wherein the petitioner-husband was directed to pay the maintenance to the respondents (wife and son) to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.8,000/- to the respondent No.1-Anuradha and Rs.7,000/- to the minor son Vansh) from the date of filing the application i.e. on 05.05.2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.2015 the respondents filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.11.2010 and out of their wedlock a son, namely Vansh (respondent No.2 herein) was born on 16.10.2011. Thereafter, due to various atrocities inflicted by the petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife has been living separately since 2015. In the application filed under of Cr.P.C., the respondent wife has asserted that the husband is earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month but neglects/refuses to maintain the respondents (wife and son), and the respondents are not having any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves, therefore, they may be awarded maintenance @ Rs.26,000/- per month. 3. The said application for maintenance was contested by the petitioner-husband by way of filing reply dated 08.09.2015, wherein the petitioner-husband has admitted the fact of marriage but denied the averments qua the respondents are entitled for maintenance of Rs.26,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the petitioner husband is earning Rs.6,475/- only and not Rs.40,000/- as claimed, it was also pleaded that the respondent-wife is well qualified (M.A.) and earns about Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a teacher in a private school, and that she had left her matrimonial home out of her own will, and that the petitioner- husband has not deserted her, therefore, she is not entitled to seek maintenance as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Thereafter the respondent-wife filed a rejoinder dated 08.12.2015 wherein she denied the averments made by the petitioner-husband in the reply and stated that the petitioner-husband has not filed true and accurate salary slips. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed four issues: 6. 4. Thereafter the respondent-wife filed a rejoinder dated 08.12.2015 wherein she denied the averments made by the petitioner-husband in the reply and stated that the petitioner-husband has not filed true and accurate salary slips. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed four issues: 6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent-wife examined herself AW-1 and exhibited 23 documents (P/1 to P/23). Per contra the petitioner-husband examined himself as NAW-1. 7. After hearing the arguments of the respected parties, the learned Court below decided all four issues in favour of the respondent-wife and allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner-husband herein to pay Rs.8,000/- to respondent No.1-Anuradha (wife) and Rs.7,000/- to respondent No.2 (the minor son-Vansh), it was also directed that the aforesaid amount of maintenance was to be paid from the date of filing of the application i.e. w.e.f. 05.05.2015. 8. Being aggrieved of which both the parties preferred two separate revision petitions bearing Nos.24/2024 and 26/2024; wherein the learned Revisional Court, after careful examination of pleadings and evidence so led by the respective parties, vide impugned order dated 07.03.2025 dismissed both the revision petitions on the ground that the amount of maintenance so awarded can neither be said to be inadequate nor can it be said to be excessive. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner-husband has preferred the present Criminal Misc. Petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the learned courts below have erred in awarding maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the application and further submits that looking to the facts of the case, the maintenance amount ought to have been made effective from the date of order. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband places reliance upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1500/2022 decided on 01.02.2024 11. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband places reliance upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1500/2022 decided on 01.02.2024 11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, and supports the impugned orders dated 07.03.2025 and 20.05.2024, and submits that the order impugned does not suffer any perversity or illegality as the learned Courts below after due examination of facts and evidence led by parties exercised their discretion, and awarded a just amount and further rightly ordered to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the application; he accordingly prays for the dismissal of the present criminal misc. petition. 12. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 13. As far as the short question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband with regard to whether the learned Courts below can award the amount of maintenance from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or not, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant extract of below: “125. 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. (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. (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. (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. (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. (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 1 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1500/2022 decided on 01.02.2024 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. xxx xxx xxx (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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Hence, sub-section (2) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for grant of maintenance or interim maintenance from the date of order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application. The provision of law itself provides jurisdiction to the learned Family Court to pass the order granting maintenance from the date of application. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court addressed the question of awarding maintenance with retrospective effect from the date of application in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Anr. , (2021) 2 SCC 324 . Having regard to its prior pronouncements and the judgments rendered by different High Courts, the Supreme Court held that the entitlement to maintenance ought to commence from the date when the application was filed, as the pendency of maintenance proceedings falls beyond the applicant's purview. , (2021) 2 SCC 324 . Having regard to its prior pronouncements and the judgments rendered by different High Courts, the Supreme Court held that the entitlement to maintenance ought to commence from the date when the application was filed, as the pendency of maintenance proceedings falls beyond the applicant's purview. The Court accordingly observed as follows: “109.....Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in S. 125(2) Cr.P.C. it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. xxxxx 113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” (Emphasis Supplied) Therefore, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, that the learned trial Court erred in directing the petitioner-husband to make payment of maintenance from the date of application, lacks merit and cannot be accepted. 16. Further, as far as the precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband in Rajesh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. 17. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent-wife on 05.05.2015, and in reply to the said application the factum of marriage is not disputed by the petitioner-husband, it is also evident that on account of bitter relationship between the parties, both husband and wife have been living separately since 2015, and there are multiple litigations going on between them. 18. 18. From the record it is also reflected as per Ex.P/5 i.e. Form-16 of the petitioner-husband, the salary of the husband was recorded as Rs.41,535/-, but he still neglects/refuses to maintain his wife and son, even when the respondent-wife has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her son, therefore, the learned Courts below, after duly considering all the relevant facts and the family status of the parties has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance (Rs.8,000/- for wife and Rs.7,000/- for son) from the date of filing of the application. 19. Therefore, since: (i) in the present case, the petitioner- husband's income is Rs.41,535/-; (ii) the respondent-wife has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her son; (iii) both the respondents, i.e. wife and son, have been neglected by the petitioner-husband; (iv) both the learned Courts below have, after examination of facts and documents before it and considering the family status of both the parties, fixed the maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- p.m. (Rs.8,000/- for wife and Rs.7,000/- for son), which can neither be said to be excessive nor arbitrary; (v) both the learned Courts below have concurrently exercised their discretion under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to grant the same from the date of filing the application; (vi) sub-section (2) of of Cr.P.C. expressly provides for the Courts to exercise discretion to award maintenance from the date of filing the application; and (vii) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the right to claim maintenance may date back to the date of filing the application, this Court does not find any force in the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, accordingly, they are repelled. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 20. The present criminal misc. petition being devoid of any substance, is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner-husband is directed to pay the entire arrears of the amount of maintenance due to him in one stroke, it may cause inconvenience to him as well as to his family members, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner-husband to pay arrears of amount of maintenance in four equal installments (within a period of one year from today). Additionally, the petitioner-husband shall pay the regular monthly amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.15,000/- p.m. awarded by learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024. 21. Accordingly, stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2386/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, upon instructions from his client, submits that the petitioner-wife does not wish to press the present criminal misc. petition, and accordingly seeks permission to withdraw the same. 2. Permission sought for is granted. 3. In that view of the matter, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.