DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Dilip Kumar, preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 12.2.2001, passed by Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, in Case No. 350 of 1995, Smt. Sunita v. Dilip Kumar under Section 125, Code of Criminal procedure whereby the application of Respondent No. 2, Smt. Sunita Devi has been allowed thereby allowing her maintenance to the tune of Rs. 350 only per month from the date of her application dated 29.8.1989.

(2.) I have heard learned A.G.A on behalf of State of U.P. as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, Smt. Sunita Devi. No one appeared on behalf of revisionist.

(3.) I have gone through the grounds of this revision stating that Respondent No. 2 on her own will had left the applicant/revisionist as a result of which the revisionist had filed a suit against her for restitution of conjugal rights. The allegations of re-marriage made by Respondent No. 2 against the revisionist are absolutely false and incorrect. The correct fact is that the revisionist still desires to keep his wife with him. Despite this fact, the court below have illegally allowed the maintenance against the revisionist without recording any finding even in respect of annual monthly income of the revisionist. The monthly maintenance awarded by the courts below @ Rs. 350 per month is excessive. The court below has also illegally awarded the maintenance to the Respondent No. 2 with effect from her date of application instead of from the date of order.