Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Petitioner-husband has assailed the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 passed by learned Family Court, Bharatpur in criminal case no.2277/2013 (Smt. Amarwati vs. Rajesh Kumar) whereby learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to respondent-wife against petitioner-husband from the date of application i.e. 04.06.2010.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-non-applicant submits that learned Family Court wrongly ordered the maintenance from the date of application instead of the date of the order. He also submits that there is no source of income of petitioner and he is preparing for competitive examination, therefore, he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance to respondent-wife. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Family Court wrongly passed the impugned order, hence, this misc. petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Chhotu Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Ramdini (2002(4) WLC (Raj.) 254); Bhanwar Lal vs. Smt. Kamla Devi (AIR 1983 Raj. 229) and Paramveer Singh vs. Suresh Kanwar II ((2008) DMC 276).

4. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Fauzdar,learned counsel for the respondent-wife supported the impugned order and submitted that there is an amendment in Cr.P.C. by the Act 50 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 whereby a provisio was incorporated in the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per amendment, the application for interim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. should be decided within 60 days after presentation. This clearly means that interim maintenance should be paid from the date of application instead of the date of order. He submits that the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-non-applicant are not applicable in the present case as two judgments are relating to Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and one is relating to final order of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this misc. petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard.

6. There is no dispute that the respondent-wife is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and is living separately. This court on 28.10.2015 tried to settle the matter amicably between the parties being matrimonial dispute, petitioner-husband aggreed before this court that he is ready and willing to keep the respondent-wife with him and it was also decided that after living together, both will appear before this court today. But today, when parties appeared before this court, it came out that husband failed to honour the promise made before this court. However, whatever the position is learned Family Court awarded only Rs.1500/- as interim maintenance in favour of respondent-wife which cannot be said as excessive amount. So far as earing capacity of petitioner-husband is concerned, nothing is pleaded or shown or argued that petitioner-husband is physically unfit for earning. When a man is physically fit to earn, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to maintain his wife. He is duty bound to maintain his wife who is having no source of income.

7. In Chhotu Singh and Anr. vs. Smt. Ramdini (supra) while deciding the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. finally, the coordinate bench of this court observed that enhanced amount should be awarded from the date of application instead of date of order, therefore, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the present case. So far as Bhanwar Lal vs. Smt. Kamla Devi (supra) is concerned it relates to Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act which is not applicable in the present case. In Paramveer Singh vs. Suresh Kanwar (supra) coordinate bench of this court ordered that amount of maintenance should be paid from the date of order instead of date of application while deciding appliction finally u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

8. After amendment on 24.09.2001 by Act 50 of 2001 the following proviso was incorporated in Section 125 Cr.P.C.:-

“Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceedin