SHIV NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. S. S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. repre senting the State of U. P. Notice was sent to the opposite party No. 2 but it has not been returned after service until now and no body has put in appearance for the opposite party No. 2. Since the revision petition is against the maintenance al lowed under Section 125, Cr. P. C. it is not in the interest of opposite party No. 2 to transfer the matter and accordingly the revision petition is taken up for hearing with the help of the materials on record.

(2.) THE argument of Mr. Tripathi against the impugned order is limited to the attack that without recording any reason the Court below has directed the maintenance to be paid from the date of application whereas the provisions under Section 125 (2), Cr. P. C. specifies that the maintenance will normally be paid from the date of order unless for reasons to be noted by the Court if the maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of ap plication.