B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr PC against the order dated 6 -11 -1997 passed by the Judge Family Court, Azamgarh in Application No. 1 of 1994.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri N.D. Rai, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2. The revisionist filed an application against opposite party No. 2, her husband for maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC. In that case by an ex -pane judgment, on 6 -11 -1997 maintenance of Rs. 500/ - per month was allowed. An application for restoration was moved and at the date hearing the father of opposite party No. 2 was present. The learned Judge Family Court, Azamgarh orally interrogated them and reduced the amount to Rs. 300/ -instead of Rs. 500/ - per month by the impugned order dated 6 -11 -1997. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been preferred.
(3.) AFTER considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order of the Judge, Family Court, is totally against the provisions of law. He has not followed the procedure and passed totally an arbitrary order.;