The court has the discretion to award maintenance under Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the date of the order or from the date of application, and this discretion must be exercised reasonably, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. Sub-Section (2) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads asunder : -

"(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so, ordered from the date of the application for maintenance."

The above provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, in its stark brevity leaves it to the Court to decide as to whether the maintenance allowance is to be paid from the date of the order or from the date of application for maintenance. This is the short question in controversy in the present revision petition.

2. To appreciate the answer, facts of it are to be delineated. The application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Harjinder Kaur and Manpreet Kaur (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the present petition) against Nactihattar Singh (petitioner). The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 400.00 per month as maintenance to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 200.00 per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of the order namely 21/01/1992. Respondents preferred a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge at Ludhina. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, modified the order of the trial Court and directed that the maintenance at the rate awarded by the trial Court, shall be payable from the date of application i.e. 16-12-1987. Adjustment of the main tenance already received was granted.

3. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana with the sole claim that maintenance should have been allowed only from the date of the order passed by the trial Court.

4. This question has been drawn to the attention of this Court more often than not. Reference to some of the precedents in this regard would be advanta geous. In the case of Bhupinder Singh V/s. Inderjit Kaur, reported as 1989 (1) R.C.R. 616, it was alleged that the normal rule was that the maintenance should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of application. The said argument was repelled from the following specific observation : -

"A destitute wife or child needing succur is entitled to get it from the date she or it approaches the Court unless there are circumstances which do not justify such a course. No such circumstances has been pointed out here. The wife has been found to be entitled to maintenance on the neglect or refusal of the husband. She complained of that fact when she made the application. Thus she is entitled to mainte nance from the date of the application."

5. This question as to whether it is obligatory for the Court to give special reasons for granting the maintenance from the date of application was re ferred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench answered the question firstly by holding it is not obligatory for the Court to give special reasons. In the case of Gurpartap Singh V/s. Smt. Sawant Kaur, reported as 1991 (1) RCR 40 (1990 Cri LJ (NOC) 152 P and H), the findings were recorded in paragraph 4 and the same are reproduced as under : -

"It only provides outer limits so as to conclude that the Magistrate cannot fix future date for ex ample two months subsequent to the passing of the order for payment of maintenance allowance nor earlier to the date of application, i.e. with retrospec tive effect. It is, therefore, not obligatory for the Court to give special reasons for granting mainte nance/interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, from the date of the application which is purely within its discretion."

Thereafter the Court, however, felt that in any case in view of Section 364, Cr. P.C. the Court is required to support its decision for determination with reasons. The relevant extract is reproduced as under : -

"However, he would like to mention here that by force of rule of jurisprudence every order had to be reasoned. Section 354 of the Code deals with con tents of judgment and in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) thereof i