SATYENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

(2.) The instant revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba, in Case No.73 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt Apurnima Vs. Satyendra) whereby the application moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed awarding Rs.8000/- per month towards maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application, which was to be paid by the revisionist by 10th day of each month.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, revisionist has preferred this revision on the ground that the impugned order is totally unjust and incorrect as the fact that the husband has no income, has not been taken into consideration by the court below while awarding maintenance to opposite party no.2. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal, perverse and based on no evidence.