- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 19-4-99 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Case No. 175 of 1997.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: Opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. before the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, which was case No. 175 of 1997 for her maintenance and also for the maintenance to her children. The applica tion was contested. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 from 9-1-97 Le. from the date of applica tion till 24-9-98, the date of divorce. No maintenance has been awarded for the children on the ground that they are living with the applicant. The refusal has not been challenged before me by opposite party No. 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the maintenance awarded to opposite party No. 2 and therefore, preferred the present revision. I have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant and the A. G. A. Opposite Party No. 2 has not been appeared in spite of service on notice and therefore, could not be heard.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he has already divorced opposite party No. 2 oral ly and also by a deed dated 2-12-96, which has been signed by him as well as by op posite party No. 2. That therefore, op posite party No. 2 was not entitled to main tenance after 2-12-96. THE learned Judge, Family Court considered the evidence in detail. He observed that the revisionist examined himself and Maqbool D. W. 2. Maqbool is a resident of the village of the applicant and is not a witness of Talaknama. THEre are other witnesses of Talaknama, but none of them has been examined. THE presence of Maqbool, who is a resident of his village at the time of Talak, is improbable. Opposite party No. 2 denied the execution of Talak. In the circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the applicant has failed to prove that any such Talaknama was executed on 2-12-96 and Talak was given orally. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court.;