A. PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER calls in question legality of the direction given by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur that she was entitled to maintenance from 3-11-1992, i. e. , the date of order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surada (in short, the JMFC while disposing of the application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code), and not from 5-2-1991, i. e. the date of application for maintenance as was originally directed by the learned JMFC.

( 2 ) DETAILED reference to the factual aspects is not necessary in view of the limited nature of controversy. Essential factual position is as follow Petitioner filed an application for maintenance in terms of Sec 125 of the Code which was allowed -and the opposite party was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of initiation of the proceeding by the learned JMFC, Surada. In revision the quantum was maintained but the reversional Court held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of application. It was observed that Sec. 125 (2) mandates reasons to be recorded