SARTAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application of opposite party No. 2 under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C., she has been allowed maintenance @ Rs. 400.00 per month from the date of the application, i.e. 08.06.1998 by order dated 24.01.2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Meerut. Against that order the present revision has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) The only argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the maintenance has been ordered to be paid from the date of the application, i.e. 08.06.1998. That it may be made payable from the date of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Meerut. As against this, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is that in the memo of revision no such plea was taken. The only plea taken in the memo of revision is that the revisionist has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. That the said suit has been dismissed and therefore, the said plea is not being pressed during arguments.