1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to assail order dated 6th of September, 2017, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pali (for short, ‘learned Court below’). The learned Court below, by the order impugned, partly allowed application of the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and granted each of them maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000 per mensem, cumulatively Rs.6,000. While granting maintenance, the learned Court below has also ordered that the same would be payable to them from the date of application, i.e. 24th of February, 2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has not questioned the quantum of maintenance determined by the learned Court below but contended that the learned Court below has not recorded reasons for reckoning the grant of maintenance from the date of application. It is submitted by learned counsel that sub-sec.(2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. though envisages allowing maintenance allowance or interim maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application but the Court is required to record reasons for ordering payment of maintenance from the date of application. He has, therefore, urged that in absence of reasons being recorded by the learned Court below the order allowing maintenance payable from the date of application is per se laconic and not sustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Jaimniben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr. Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr. [(2015) 2 SCC 385].

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the learned Court below in exercise of its discretion has granted maintenance allowance to the respondents from the date of application, which calls for no interference. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui Vs. Sahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705].

4. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar.

5. In view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned his plea to challenge the order on merits granting allowance for maintenance, a very limited issue has survived for adjudication. The issue which requires consideration by the Court is as to from which date grant of maintenance is to be reckoned. It is trite that Court in its discretion can grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of order but then while doing so, Court is required to record reasons in adherence of Section 125 and 354(6) Cr.P.C. In Jaimini Ben (supra), Supreme Court has considered this issue and held :

“The relevant part of Section 125 reads as follows :

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, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(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, or

(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 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 :

Provided further that t