1. This is a wifes appeal questioning the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court directing that the maintenance should be paid from the date of the order and not the date of the application as allowed by the courts below. The only reason why the High Court interfered in revision was that the husbands salary was Rs 1285-55p. and his carry-home pay packet was Rs 506 and therefore it though it would be unjust to compel him to pay maintenance of Rs 400 per month. It is a matter of discretion of the court whether to allow enhanced maintenance from the date of the application or from the date of the order. It appears that the initial maintenance was fixed at Rs 50 for the wife and Rs 100 per month for the son, which was increased to Rs 175 and Rs 225 respectively, presumably because of the increase in the cost of living as well as the fact that the son was old enough to go to school and the wife would have to incur additional expenses on his education. It appears that the husband had incurred liability to pay instalments by obtaining loans, but that is no reason why the wife and the minor child should be denied maintenance which is just sufficient for keeping body and soul together. We think that this was not a fit case in which the High Court should have interfered in revision. Therefore, quite apart from the question whether or not a second revision could lie to the High Court we do not see how we can allow this order to stand because there was no justification for interfering with the discretion exercised by the two courts below for good reason

2. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court in revision and restore the order of the learned Magistrate which came to be confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik. There will be no order as to costs.