SUDHANSU KUMAR Vs. SANGEETA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order, said to have been4 passed on 1.12.93 of Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 337 of 1993 Sangeeta Kumar v. Sudhanshu Kumar under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. issuing direction to the employer of the revisionist to deduct the maintenance allowance from the salary of the revisionist and rem it it to the opposite party by cheque or draft by 1.1.94 the date fixed in the case.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party has put in appearance and with the consent of the Counsel for the parties the revision is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. It appears that vide order dated 22.9.93 the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 300/- per month for maintenance of the opposite party and Rs. 150/- per month for maintenance of their minor daughter. She, thereafter, filed an application for the recovery of the maintenance allowance granted to her and their minor daughter upon which the order in question was passed.

(3.) The first contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the order was passed on 1.1.94, that this oider was passed in advance and that on this account the order has become null and void. The photostat copy of this order has been filed. At the top of this order itis stated that Copy of the order dated 1.12.93. The copy of this order was obtained on 3-12-93. In this order 1.1.94 has been fixed as the date by which the employer of the revisionist was to issue the cheque or draft to the applicant. It appears that while writing 1.1.94 in, the order the Judge, Family Court also put 1.1.94 under his signature. It cannot be said that the order was passed in advance. It was a clerical error in the sense that correct date was not put down under his signature by the Judge, Family Court. From the copy itself it is crystal dear that the order was passed on 1.12.93.