Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

1.This revision has been filed against the order dated 20-08-2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate (/Civil Judge, J.D.), Nazibabad, Bijnor, in Misc. Case no. 3/ 2007 Smt. Pooja v. Amar Singh, under section 125 Cr.P.C., and judgment dated 16-03-2010 passed by Addl. Sessions JudgeBijnor, Court No.-6, in Criminal Revision No. 244/ 2009 Amar v. State of U.P. & another.

2.Applicants (present revisionists) had filed a petition u/s 125 CrPC with averment that she is legally married to OP- Amar. Sometime after marriage OP treated revisionists with cruelity and deserted them without any reason. Thereafter she is living with her parents who are unable to bear her expenses. Applicant has no source of income while the OP is carrying on business and has sufficient income to maintain them. Therefore applicant has filed the application for maintenance.

3.Opposite Party Amar had filed objection in Magistrate court refuting the allegations, and stated that his monthly income is Rs. 1500-2000 pr month. He had responsibility to maintain his parents. Applicant is working and earning lady, who had deserted him without any reason and had also filed criminal case against him. He is unable to pay maintenance amount.

4.After accepting evidences and affording opportunity of hearing learned Magistrate had allowed petition of applicant (present revisionist) by judgment dated 20-08-2009 for monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to be paid from the date of application.

5.Against this impugned judgment dated 20-08-2009 the OP (present respondent no.-2 Amar Singh) had preferred Criminal Revision no. 244/ 2009 which was decided by judgment dated 16-03-2010 of Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.-6, Bijnor. By this judgment revision was partially allowed and maintenance order dated 20-08-2009 was modified to the extent that maintenance was made payable from the date of order of Magistrate (dated 20-08-2009).

6.Now it was turn of the wife- applicant Pooja to prefer present revision by which she challenged both the orders dated 20-08-2009 of Magistrate court and judgment dated 16-03-2010 of Sessions court. By present revision revisionist requested for enhancement of amount of maintenance awarded by Magistrate Court and also for staying the operation of order of Sessions Judge to the extent of modification in order of Magistrate court.

7.Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that firstly, Sessions Court below had erred by modifying the maintenance from the date of order instead of from the date of presentation of application; and secondly, in insufficient maintenance was awarded by Magistrate which should be enhanced.

8.I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through records.

9.Section 125 (2) CrPC, which reads :

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

10.A bare reading of this sub-section makes it clear that ordinary rule is that maintenance to wife is payable from the date of order. Exception to this ordinary rule is an order making maintenance payable from the date of application. When an exception has to be made in the ordinary rule making the maintenance payable from the date of application by an order, the order must be supported by reason or reasons.

11.In Satish Chandra Gupta vs. Amt. Aneeta & others, 1994 (31) A.C.C. 563 this court had held that - - "ordinary rule is that maintenance to wife is payable from the date of order and exception to this ordinary rule is an order making maintenance payable from the date of application and if recourse to the exception is taken the order must be supported by reasons."

12.Propriety demands that the Courts should give reasons for granting maintenance allowance from the date of application. Any direction of maintenance should generally be prospective. If direction is made retrospective in nature, the person bearing burden of it may be prejudi