The husband is the revision petitioner. He filed this revision against the Judgment of the Court of the IInd Addl. Munsiff magistrate, Ongole in M.C. No. 8/1982. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a handicapped person having lost both his legs due to polio. He is working as an officer in the Accountant Generals Office at Hyderabad. He married the respondent No. 1 in the month of December, 1969 who is a deaf and dumb lady, out of sympathy to the handicapped persons. Thereafter they lived amicably and happily. Respondent No. 2 is the elder daughter born to them on 9-4-1972. Respondent No. 3 is the younger daughter born to them on 27-7-1974, and the family lived happily up to the year 1982. Thereafter, it is the case of the respondents that they were thrown out by the petitioner from his house on 17-6-1982 by giving them Rs. 70/- and asking them to go to the parents house of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, they went there and there they lived. Thus, they have been neglected to be maintained by the petitioner who is having sufficient means and that they have no means to maintain themselves, therefore, they filed the petition. The petitioner herein filed a counter and denied the allegations stating that there is no refusal or negligence on the part of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents PWs 1 and 2 were examined. PW 1 is the elder daughter of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. PW 2 is the sisters husband of the 1st respondent. The respondent is M.C. himself, i.e., the husband petitioner herein, was examined as R.W. 1. The petitioner in M.C. Marked Exs. P-1 to P. 7 and the respondent-husband marked Exs.D-1 to D-52. The Court below after considering the entire material evidence on record, awarded Rs. 300/- per month towards maintenance of the 1st respondent and Rs. 150/- each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 per month. The above said maintenance is ordered from the next day of the filing of the petition. Against that order, the present revision is filed.

(2) It is mainly contended that there is no negligence or refusal to maintain the respondents by the petitioner-husband and this is clear from the admission by the 1st respondent-wife herself in Ex. D-42 deposition of the wife on O.P. No. 75/84 that there was no neglect or refusal. It is to be noted that the very ground in the petition under S. 125, Crl.P.C. is that they were thrown out and thereafter, they were not maintained. PW 1 who is admittedly the daughter of the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein, was aged about 11 years on the date of the examination before the Court. She was put to questions by the Court to find out whether she was able to understand the questions. The Lower Court found that she is quite intelligent to understand the questions and answers. In her deposition, she stated that her father was residing at Secunderabad and the mother is dumb, and she stated that the father started ill-treating her mother and used to beat her with belt and used to threaten her and then that he would throw them into a well and they have been knocked out from the house by giving Rs. 70/- and asking them to go away. Therefore, they went to the mothers place of the 1st respondent at Ongole. She also stated that the petitioner has sent Rs. 200/- by way of money order, but the same was returned, she stated that the same was informed to the father but he did not take them. She stated that her paternal grand mother and her fathers brother have foisted a case by telling a cock and bull story that her father is working as a Section Officer in the Accountant Generals Office at Hyderabad. She is studying pre-matric at Guntur Santha College. She has stated that the father is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. Hence, they filed a petition for maintenance seeking Rs. 300/- per month for the 1st respondent, Rs. 150/- each per month to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. She stated that the father had deserted the mother. So the case is filed. She also stated that the father harassed the mother. She stated that she is ready to go and live with the father, in case, he takes the mother along with them. Otherwise, they are not prepared to go and live with the father. She stated that she and her sister are living at Guntur for their studies. She further stated that they left the house as the father has sent them away. They requested several times to take them back but he refused. She also stated that a number of cases are pending and they engaged advocates. She stated that they have no means to maintain themselves and they are not working anywhere and the 1st respondent is not able to work as she is a handicapped woman. She was cross-examined at length and put to questions regarding the litigations between them, but nothing is elicited to discredit her evidence. Even in the cross-examination, she consistently stated that her father has thrown them away from the house and he ill-treated the mother and bate her. She also denied that the mother made several attempts to commit suicide. She also denied that the mother carried the gold jewellery and other articles worth Rs. 16,000/-. This witness is a very young girl and she is the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. She has no grouse against the petitioner and on the other hand, she has got a sympathy to respondent No. 1. She is a deaf and dumb lady and she stated that she is ready to go and live with her father if the 1st respondent is taken along with them. But the father is not ready to take the 1st respondent.

(3) The evidence of this witness is trustworthy. Her evidence is more reliable because she is the daughter of the petitioner and the 1st respondent and it cannot be said that she will depose falsely against the father if he has not ill-treated the 1st respondent. The fact is that the petitioner was thrown out in the month of June, 1982 by giving Rs. 70/- and asking them to go away. She has consistently stated so, in her evidence. PW 2 is the husband of the sister of the 1st respondent. He also stated that the petitioner has sent away respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, they came and now studying at Guntur and they have no source of maintenance. He also stated that a case was foisted against him by the petitioner herein. He is a retired process server in the District Court at Ongole. Merely because he has given shelter to respondents 1 to 3, it cannot be said that he is deposing falsely. His evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of PW 1. RW 1, the petitioner herein denied the allegations that he never neglected to maintain respondents 1 to 3. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 tried to commit suicide and she was not behaving well and she was harrassing him, causing him so much mental agony. It is the further case that he never neglected and is ready to maintain her. He filed a number of documents Exs. D-1 to D-52.

(4) The learned counsel Sri Padmanabha Reddy, has taken me through the evidence of the 1st Respondent in O.P. Even in that evidence, the 1st respondent stated that she was ill-treated. She was examined and her evidence was recorded through the Interpreter who interpreted signs indicated by the 1st respondent. It is typed at page 87 of the material papers. The answers given to some of the questions, were not correctly interpreted and she was not able to understand some of the questions. But, however, she specifically stated that the petitioners mother and brother used to ill-treat her and asked her to go away. But, however, to a further question, she stated that once her husband at the instance of his mother and brother tried to threaten her to throw into a well. To a further question, she stated once the petitioners mother and brother asked her to go away and told her that they wanted to perform the 2nd marriage to him, but the petitioner did not tell about the 2nd marriage to her. To a further question, she stated that her husbands mother threatened her and told them to go out of the house in the presence of the husband. By going through the answers, it is clear that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were ill treated by the petitioner and his mother and brother. Merely because to some questions, she stated that the husband has not ill-treated her, it does not mean that there was no ill-treatment. Therefore the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clinchingly proves that the petitioner has refused to maintain respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and they were thrown out in the month of June, 1982. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for maintenance.

(5) The learned counsel, Sri Padnamabha Reddy, next contended that under S. 125, Crl.P.C. the maintenance should be awarded from the date of the order and the maintenance can be awarded from the date of the petition, only for special reasons to be recorded by the Court. In the present case no special reasons are recorded; still, the Court has awarded maintenance from the next date of the petition; the same is illegal and against the spirit of S. 125(2), Crl.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife, Sri Kolanda Reddy contended that under Section 125(2), Crl.P.C. it is the discretion given to the Court to award the maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the petition, as per the circumstances of each case. In this case, it is proved by the respondents that they were thrown out from the house in the month of June, 1982, therefore there is nothing wrong in awarding maintenance from the next date of the petition.

(6) To decide the above point, whether the Court has to grant maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the petition, it depends upon the facts of each case and it is necessary to extract Section 125(2), Crl.P.C. which reads as follows :

"125(1)

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

Clauses (2) of Section 125 stated that the Court can order maintenance from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the petition. Therefore, the discretion is given to the Court. Merely because of the words "so ordered" contained in S. 125(2), Crl.P.C. "from the date of the application for maintenance". It cannot be said that the Court must give special reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. If the Court considers the circumstances of a particular case and order maintenance from the date of the petition, it cannot be said that the Court exercised the discretion which is not vested in it. It must be noted that in cases where special reasons are to be assigned, the Criminal Procedure Code has specifically stated so in the provisions. Some such provisions are :

"Section 167(3) : A Magistrate authorising under this Section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing";

Section 309(1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded;

(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing :

"Section 354(3) : When the conviction for an offence punishable with death, or in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the Judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence."

"361 : Where in any case, the Court could have dealt with -

(b) a youthful offender under the children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done so, it shall record in its Judgment the special reasons for not having done so."

From the Sections extracted above, it is clear that the Court must specifically state reasons as stated in the above Sections. But, there is no mention specifically in S. 125(2), Crl.P.C. that the Court must give special reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. Therefore, this contention is not tenable.

(7) It is further contended that the Court below has awarded maintenance to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, children till they are married. As per Section 125, Crl.P.C. the maintenance can be granted only till the minors attain majority. Only in special cases even after attaining majority, if they are not able to maintain themselves, due to physical disability etc., the Court can award the maintenance. In the present case, it is not shown that there is any physical disability to respondents Nos. 2 and 3; on the other hand, they are healthy even from the findings of the Court below. It is, therefore, relevant here to extract Section 125(1)(a), (b) and (c), Crl.P.C.

"Section 125(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain,

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) has legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain himself or herself

(d)"

(8) As per Section 125, Crl.P.C., it is clear that the maintenance can be awarded only to minor children under Section 125, Crl.P.C., whether married or not, when they are not able to maintain themselves. only in special circumstances the maintenance can be awarded even after attaining the majority where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain herself. In the present case, the Court below has found that though the 1st respondent is a physically handicapped woman, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are quite well and intelligent. Therefore I feel that the Court below ought not to have awarded maintenance to them for a period beyond the age of their attaining majority. Therefore, the maintenance awarded to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is limited uptil their attaining the age of majority.

(9) It is next contended by Sri Padmanabha Reddy that there are number of Ex. D series documents which disprove the contention of the respondent. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of RW 1, clearly prove that there was negligence and refusal on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the said documents have little effect on the case. However, the Court below has elaborately considered and rejected the same. I do not see any grounds to refer to those documents at length.

(10) It is next contended that the petitioner filed two Crl.M.Ps., to adduce additional evidence to show the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are working PW 1 has stated that she is studying at Guntur. She has to appear for Junior Intermediate Examination. It must be noted that they are living with the mother studying at Guntur without any help. That must be appreciated.

PW 1 deposed that she was studying at Guntur. Therefore they require some amount for education as well as for their survival. Some documents are also filed in that regard after hearings is over. I have gone through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and RW 1 and the judgment of the Court below and I am satisfied that the wife and children have established that the petitioner has refused and neglected to maintain them and the petitioner is getting a salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is also stated by both the counsel that CMA No. 528/88 filed by the petitioner for the custody of children was also dismissed and the judgment is to keep the children in the custody of the mother.

(11) In view of the above circumstances, except modifying the order relating to maintenance of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by limiting it till they attain majority, the order of the lower Court is confirmed; in all other respects I do not see any grounds to interfere with the revision. It is accordingly dismissed.

Revision dismissed.