The Judicial Magistrate has the discretion to award maintenance from the date of the application or from the date of the order under Section 125(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the failure to give reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the application does not invalidate the order, as long as the wife has established that she was unable to maintain herself and her children from the date of the application.

The Order of the Court is as follows:

The order granting maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the first respondent, wife and Rs. 200/-each to the second the third respondents, the children from the date of application i.e. from 7-3-1994 passed in M.C. No. 4 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyar is challenged by the husband, the petitioner herein in this revision before this Court.

2. The facts are the following :-

The first respondent married the petitioner on 6-3-1985 in the presence of elders in the Sivan koil at Kubbampatti. Out of the said wedlock the second respondent was born on 20-3-1986. Ex. P1 is the birth register. The third respondent was born on 22-6-1988. The birth register is Ex. P2. Though initially they lived happily, the petitioner began to harass the wife asking her to get money and jewels from her parents house. Since the said unlawful demand was not complied with, the respondents were beaten and driven away from the matrimonial home. Six months prior to this application claiming maintenance she gave a complaint to the Women Dowry Wing at Trichy regarding the harassment of the petitioner and requested the police to arrange for reunion. However, during the police enquiry, the petitioner/husband refused to take her despite the advice given by elders as well as by the police. According to the wife, the petitioner is working as a Tanker lorry driver earning about Rupees 3000/-per month besides owning properties of seven acres belonging to his father. On this basis she claimed maintenance of Rs. 500/- for herself and Rs. 400/-for the children each. In order to prove her case, she filed Exs. P1 and P2, the birth registers of the children Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 voters list. The evidence of PW-1 was corroborated by the evidence of her uncle PW-2, Muthusamy and independent witness PW-3, Palaniappan.

3. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as R.W. 1 and two other witnesses. The plea of the husband is that he never married the first respondent and that the children were not born to him and that factually she was kept as a concubine by his uncle Ramasamy and only out of that connection the two children were born.

4. On consideration of the materials, the lower Court concluded that the wife has made out a case for claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her children and awarded maintenance of Rs. 300/- for the wife and Rs. 200/-each to the children. On being aggrieved over the impugned order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

5. Mr. Bhaskar, the learned counsel representing M/s. Ram and Ram appearing for the petitioner would submit the following contentions :-

The lower Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and the factum of marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was not actually proved. The first respondent has not adduced any evidence through independent witness or documentary proof for the alleged marriage. The birth registers Exs. P1 and P2 and Exs. P3 and P4 Voters list filed by the wife would not be sufficient to hold that both are living together as husband and wife and children were born out of the valid marriage. At any rates, in the absence of any reason, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed a grave error in awarding the maintenance from the date of the application instead of awarding the maintenance impugned from the date of the order. In support of his submission the learned counsel has cited various authorities.

6. The Apex Court has held in Pathumma v. Muhammed, that the factual finding given by the lower Court which conducted enquiry with reference to the validity of the marriage and paternity of the children cannot be disturbed in the revision. In the light of the said principle, it is clear, on perusal of the judgment and the depositions that the wife has proved the marriage as well as the paternity of the children and as such, I do not find any merit with reference to the said point, especially wh