- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27-6-97 passed by Family Judge, Al lahabad allowing the application for grant of maintenance by the wife from the date of the application till the Tiling of the written statement and for a period of three months and thirteen days at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month and further maintenance to the sons from the date of the presentation of the application till their minority.
(2.) DESPITE the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. The counsel for the opposite party No. 2 appeared and after hearing him and learned A. G. A. , the judgment was reserved. In the grounds of revision, it has been contended that the learned Judge did not consider the source of income of the revisionist and, therefore, the order is illegal. This contention is devoid of any merit. The revisionist is a railway employee and on the date of order he was drawing a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month previously he was getting salary amounting to Rs. 3,200/ -. In view of this finding the amount of maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. Secondly, it has been stated that the learned Judge committed error in award ing maintenance from the date of the ap plication. It cannot be disputed that the Court had power to grant maintenance from the date of the application. The revisionist had failed to maintain his children. The lady must have been facing difficulty in educating her children. In the circumstances the order appears to be jus tified. More over the Division Bench of this Court in Jagat Narain v. Sessions. Judge, Mainpuri and others, reported in 1997 Alld. CJ 1400, it has been held that non-assign ing of the reasons by itself will not vitiate the order granting maintenance from the date of application of the destitute wife. In view of this decision and the facts stated above I do not find any reason to interfere with the order on the ground that maintenance was awarded on the date of application without assigning any reason.
(3.) THE third ground is that the learned Judge failed to follow the provisions of Muslim Women Protection Act which per mits the wife to get maintenance for Iddat period only. This contention is devoid of any force. Firstly the application had been filed under Section 125, Cr. PC. THE learned Judge had power to award main tenance till the date of divorce. THE revisionist failed to prove that he had divorced the lady on 23-7-90. In these cir cumstances, the learned Judge held and rightly that the divorce will be valid from the date when it was communicated to the wife through the written statement. THE learned Judge had power to award main tenance till the date of divorce and also maintenance to the children till their minority. It is true that the allowance for Iddat period could be granted by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Muslim Women Protection Act but it appears unnecessary to send the accused to another leg of litigation for considering maintenance for a period less than three and half months. In view of the facts and circumstan ces, I do not find any merit in this revision. It is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .;