Pritpal Singh, J.:— The petitioner Smt. Tripta filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for grant of maintenance against her husband Sat Parkash respondent. The trial Court vide the impugned Judgment dated July 2, 1983 allowed this application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner from the date of the order.
2. In the revision petition Smt. Tripta has taken two pleas. Firstly, that the quantum of maintenance being indequate be increased and secondly, that the maintenance be allowed from the date of application.
3. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order nor it was pointed out to be by the learned petititioner's counsel. Hence I do not propose to interfere with the amount circumstance assessed by the trial Court.
4. The second plea of the petitioner, however, deserves to he accepted. Section 125(2) of the Code of provides that such allowance can be ordered to be paid either from the date of the order or from the date of the application for maintenance. In the judgment of this Court in Smt. Pritam Kaur v. Sunder Singh, 1965 PLR 263, it was held that where the husband has been neglecting the wife persistently he should be ordered to pay maintenance from the date of the application of the wife. Similar view was expressed by another judgment of this Court in Jagir Kaur v. Bhura Singh, 1975 HLR 247. In that case the wife had been without proper maintenance after she was turned out of the house by the husband and it was held that she should be granted maintenance from the date of presentation of the application in the trial Court.
5. In the present case it has been unambiguously held by the trial Court that the respondent had neglected to maintain the petitioner since 1975 and had refused to rehabilitate or maintain her without any reasonable cause. In such circumstances there appears to be no reason why the petitioner should not be granted maintenance from the date of application.
6. The respondent's counsel relied upon a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kul Lukhhmani v. Ramu, 1983 HLR 252. In this judgment it was held that under Section 125(2) of the Code such allowance has to be normally payable from the date of the order and if it is allowed from the date of the application special reasons have to be given. In the first place it does not appear to be a correct proposition that Section 125(2) has laid down that normally the allowance should be paid from the date of the order. A reading of this Section would show that it is discretionary with the trial Court either to grant the allowance from the date of the order or from the date of application. There is no indication that if the maintenance, is allowed from the date of the application, then some special reasons have to be given. In the second place then are special reasons in this case to grant the petitioner maintenance from the date of application because she has been persistently neglected by the respondent since 1975.
7. As a result of what has been stated above, this revision is allowed. The amount of maintenane would be payable to the petitioner by the respondent from the date of her application of maintenance. The impugned order of the trial Court stands modified to this extent.
Petition allowed.