JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed by appellant No. 1-wife and appellant No. 2-daughter of respondent herein-Krishan Bhagwan Pathak. The appellants have approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on May 3, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2007. By the said order, the High Court partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent-husband and modified the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur on October 30, 2006 in Miscellaneous Case No. 280 of 1997, renumbered as No. 1 of 2005.

3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies before more than three decades. From the said wedlock, nine children were born. Appellant No. 2-Kumari Babli is the youngest among all and she is the only child staying with her mother-appellant No. 1. At the time of filing of the application, she was of twelve years.

4. On July 21, 1997, the appellants filed a case for maintenance in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') (Misc. Case No. 280 of 1997) claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. for appellant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- p.m. for appellant No. 2. It was the case of the appellant No. 1 that her husband had neglected to maintain his wife-appellant No. 1 as also his legitimate daughter-appellant No. 2. On November 20, 1999, an application was filed by the appellants requesting the Court to grant `interim' maintenance during the pendency of proceedings before the Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the said application, granted the prayer and fixed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m. for each of the applicants with effect from February 12, 1998. The parties, thereafter, led the evidence which was closed on September 3, 2001 and the case was adjourned for final arguments. During the pendency of proceedings, however, Family Court came to be established and the case was transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur.

5. From the evidence, it was clear that the respondent was working as Cashier with the State Bank of India, Bihita Branch and was getting gross salary of Rs. 18,508-98. After deduction, his pay packet was of Rs. 9,831-76. The respondent retired from service in January, 2006. The appellants filed a petition on September 12, 2006 with a prayer to direct the respondent to pay arrears of maintenance which came to Rs. 11,600/- and the Family Court on October 30, 2006, allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay the entire amount of the arrears in lump sum by the next date of hearing.

6. The matter was finally disposed of by the Family Court on November 29, 2006 and the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to applicant-appellant No. 1- wife and Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to applicant-appellant No. 2-minor daughter with effect from the date of application i.e. July 21, 1997 with further order to pay arrears within three months of the order after deducting the amount which had already been paid under the interim order passed by the Court earlier.

7. The appellant was dissatisfied with the order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court and preferred Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2007 in the High Court.

8. The High Court partly allowed the Revision and modified the direction issued by the Family Court. The High Court reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 750/- to appellant No. 1-wife and from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 750/- to appellant No. 2- daughter. The High Court also directed that the amount of maintenance would be payable to the applicants-appellants not from the date of the application i.e. July 21, 1997 but from the date of the order i.e. November 29, 2006. The