JUDGMENT

S.S. Grewal, J. - Satwant Kaur (hereinafter referred to as wife) on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter Pavitar Puneet, as her mother and natural guardian, filed application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for grant of maintenance against her husband Gurpartap Singh, on the averments that she has no source of income of her own whereas her husband Gurpartap Singh who has owned considerable immovable property also earns Rs. 15000/- per month and that he has refused and neglected to maintain them. On similar grounds maintenance pendente lite was also prayed for.

The husband in his reply admitted the relationship between the parties and pleaded that his wife has intentionally withdrawn from his company without any sufficient cause and she was not entitled to any maintenance. It was also pleaded that the wife has been earning Rs. 1000/- from stitching clothes and by engaging herself in knitting work and that she has sufficient income to maintain herself and her minor daughter.

The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, vide his impugned order dated July 25 1988, Annexure P-1, held that the husband had neglected and refused to maintain his wife and their daughter and awarded Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife and Rs. 100/- per month to the minor daughter from the date of application. On revision Additional Sections Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned order dated November 29, 1988 dismissed the revision petition.

Aggrieved against the order of the Courts below the husband has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code.

On behalf of the husband, it was submitted that both the Courts below have erred in law in not giving any cogent or special reasons for granting the maintenance, and in the absence of any specific finding that the husband was guilty of the delaying tactics in trial and had been putting obstacles in early disposal maintenance pendente lite could not be granted from the date of the application. Reliance in this respect was placed on Single Bench authority of this Court in Charanjit Singh Grewal alias Goggi v. Inderjit Kaur, 1988(2) P.L.R. 297, wherein it was held "that a perusal of the above provision would show that maintenance is to be awarded from the date of order, but the Court is not debarred from awarding it from the date of application to make maintenance payable from the date of application, the Court must have cogent reasons for ordering so. Normally, the reasons relate to the conduct of the husband during the trial. The husband, who is guilty of delaying tactics in trial and had been putting obstacles in early disposal, can be directed to make the payment or maintenance from the date of application."

On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the wife and minor daughter that no special reasons are required to be given in case maintenance allowance is granted from the date of application. Reliance in this respect was placed on another Single Bench authority of this Court in Smt. Tripta v. Sat Parkash, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 149 wherein it was observed that "it does not appear to be a correct proposition that Section 125 (2) has laid down that normally the allowance should be paid from the date of the order. A reading of this Section would show that it is discretionary with the trial court either to grant the allowance from the date of the order or from the date of application. There is no indication that if the maintenance is allowed from the date of the application, then some special reasons have to be given.

It is true that under the Code, there is no provision for filing an application for granting interim maintenance during the pendency of main application under Section 125 of the Code. However, such an application is by itself a separate matter and it has to be disposed of separately much earlier than the final order the main case. By an order of interim maintenance, th