RAJ KUMAR MORYA Vs. GEETA MORYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is against the orders dated 22.2.1991 and 17.7.1991 passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil suit No. 94 -A/90 challenging the quantum of maintenance.

(1.) .I see no merit in this case. The impugned order dated 22.2.1991 goes to show that it was the consenting order signed by the parties and subsequently by the advocate appearing for the applicant. It cannot be said that it was not the consenting order. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the subsequent order dated 17.7.1991 rejecting the review application also seems to be correct. Though the applicant submits that he is a clerk and has to feed all his children and old parents but he is ready to pay Rs.225/ - per month as maintenance to the non -applicant, as ordered earlier. The difference comes to Rs.75/ - per month only. Before this Court also, no affidavit of the advocate representing the applicant in the lower Court has been filed to show that the order was not the consenting order.