Sub-section (2) of Section 125, Cr. P. C., which provides that maintenance allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision directed against the judgement and order dated 10-8-1994 passed by Judge Family Court, Agra in Criminal Case No 548 of 1991, whereby an application of the opposite party Smt. Baby under S. 125, Cr. P. C. was allowed and she was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri V. K. Birla, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the contesting opposite party No. 2 Sri Virendra Singh.

( 3 ) ON 16-7-1991 the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Baby filed an application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. in the Family Court at Agra. She alleged that she had been married with the revisionist according to Hindu Custom on 15-2-1990. But the revisionist Basant Lal was not satisfied with the dowry received at the time of his marriage and demanded more dowry and on refusal he used to beat his wife Smt. Baby and showed cruel behaviour against her and neglected her even in the matter of providing proper clothes and proper food and treatment. On 8-4-1991 she was forced to get out of his house she was left in her state of illness at the house of her parents and thereafter he totally neglected her and was never ready to take her back. She therefore claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000. 00 per month on the ground that she was not able to maintain herself and the husband was having sufficient means and business earning about a sum of Rs. 4,000. 00 per month. This application was contested by the opposite party who filed a written statement, but admitted the alleged fact of marriage. He however denied the allegation of demand of dowry, cruel behaviour and neglect. He had offered to take her back.

( 4 ) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge clearly recorded the findings of fact to the effect that the husband was not at all ready to keep his wife with him and he has not only neglected her but has also treated her with cruelty. The learned Judge has further recorded a finding that the husband has got sufficient means of income so as to pay her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month. However the learned Judge directed the payment of the maintenance allowance with effect from 16-7-1991 the date of application filed under S. 125, Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Judgeare not at all justified by the evidence on record as the learned Judge has wrongly disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the husband. I have gone through the judgement recorded by the learned Judge. I find that he has properly discussed the evidence of both parties. The view taken by the learned Judge cannot be substituted by the view of the superior Court on a fresh appraisal of the evidence on record. The findings recorded by the learned Judge are based on evidence and are justified by the evidence on record. I have no reason to say that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are not proper. Therefore no interference is called for with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Judge after his appraisal of the evidence on record.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the impugned order of the learned Judge directing the husband to pay maintenance allowance with effect from the date of the application is not supported by any reasons and it is therefore illegal and should be modified by substituting the date of the order for the purposes of making payment of the maintenance allowance. In support of his submission he has invited attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Chandra Prabha Devi (1990 JIC 773), 1990 Judicial Interpretation on Crimes page 773 and another decision of this Court in the case of Harpal v. Smt. Meena Devi (1993 JIC 378), 1993 Judicial Interpretation on Crimes page 378.

( 7 ) MR. Virendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for opp