RAJU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Raju, preferred this revision against the Judgement and order dated 11.4.2001 passed by Judge, Family Court, Agra, in case No. 396 of 1996 through which learned Judge has allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 as maintenance allowance from 17.9.1999 the date of application filed by respondent No. 2 before the Family Court, Agra.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this revision, no one appeared on behalf of revisionist while leaned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned A.G.A on behalf of respondent the State of U.P. remained present, who have been heard on this revision as per grounds mentioned in the memo of this revision.

(3.) As per grounds mentioned in the memo of this revision, the impugned order is said to have been passed by the Court below awarding Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application, is against the law as well as on the facts of the case because Smt. Dimpal, opposite party No. 2, refused to live with the revisionist without any sufficient reason and the financial conditions of the revisionist is very poor, while the respondent No. 2, Smt. Dimpal knows the art of painting, sewing and weaving etc by which she earns Rs. 1500/- per month. The Court below even did not consider the proviso under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in which it is provided that wife is not entitled for any maintenance in case she refuses to live with her husband. It is further stated that the Court below has illegally awarded the maintenance from the date of application with no reasons for awarding it from the date of application which is now mandatory under the law.