HARI SHANKER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision by the husband has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-1990 passed by Km. Sadhna Rani the then IVth Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 46/xi/90 under Section 125, Cr. P. C, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the opposite party w. e. f. 19-2-1988, the date of filing the application.

(2.) IT has not been disputed that the opposite party is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and that they were married in the year 1978.

(3.) THE revisionist contested this application and denied the allegations regarding cruel treatment and harassment of the opposite party. He also denied having made any dowry demand from the opposite party. According to him the opposite party is in employment at Mathura and is also doing teaching work. She does not want to leave that employment and live with the revisionist. Since the opposite party has means to maintain herself she is not entitled for maintenance. He also stated that he is a casual labourer and is not able to earn more than Rs. 700 per month. He also offered to keep the opposite party with himself alleging that she should come and reside with him and perform her material obligations.