The discretionary power of the Magistrate to order maintenance payment from the date of the application or the date of the order should be exercised with reasons provided, considering the balance of conflicting interests and the duty to consider all facts of the case.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 012.1999 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases-cum-Additional Session Judge, Pratapgarh whereby he has modified the order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Civil Judge. Vide order dated 20.10.1997, the learned Civil Judge had allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC and had directed that the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month shall be paid to the petitioner by the non-petitioner from the date of filing of the application. Since, the non-petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 012.1999 the learned Judge was pleased to direct that the maintenance amount should be paid not from the date of the application, but from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. Hence, this miscellaneous petition before us.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Gayatri, was married to the non-petitioner, Om Prakash, On 22.01.1987 according to the Hindu rites. Just within four months of the marriage, differences arose between the parties because of the alleged cruel treatment meted out to the petitioner by the non-petitioner and his family members. According to the petitioner, she fell ill in May, 1987. But, despite her illness, her husband and her in-laws did not look after her. Subsequently, on 06.05.1987 her father took her back to her parental home. Since then, she has been living with her brother. She has also claimed that on 23.07.1988 her husband re-married with one Manjula Devi D/0 Motilal. She further claimed that since she is unable to maintain herself , therefore, the non-petitioner should be directed to provide maintenance to her under Section 125 CrPC.

4. In order to prove her case, the petitioner examined six witnesses and submitted one document. In order to substantiate his case, the non-petitioner examined two witnesses but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 20.10.1997 the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the non-petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month as mentioned above. The non-petitioner had filed a revision petition against the said order. Vide order dated 012.1999, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order dated 20.10.1997 as mentioned above.

5. Mr. Manish Shishodia, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the grant of maintenance from the date of the application or from the date of the order is a discretion vested with the trial Court. According to him, the case was pending from 1989 till 1997 i.e., for a long period of six years. During this period, no interim maintenance was granted by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in granting the maintenance from the date of the application instead of from the date of the order. He has further contended that according to the learned Judge, the inordinate delay of six years has been caused by the petitioner as she did not examine any witness from 06.01.1993 till 13.06.1993. However, according to him, this is a mis-reading of the order-sheets of the trial Court which have also been placed before us. According to him, a bare perusal of the order-sheets would clearly reveal that the delay had been caused not just by the petitioner, but more so by the absence of the Presiding Officer and by the strike observed by the lawyers. Therefore, the entire blame cannot be placed on the petitioners shoulder for the said delay of two years. Since, the learned Judge has misread the judicial record, therefore, the modification ordered by him