- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. On an application of the opposite party No. 2, under Section 125, Cr PC , she has been allowed main tenance @ Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the application, i. e. , 8-6-1998 by order dated 24- 1-2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Meerut. Against that order the present revision has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri D. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the op posite party No. 2 and the learned A. G. A. The only argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the maintenance has been ordered to be paid from the date of the application, i. e. , 8-6-1998. That it may be made payable from the date of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Meerut. As against this, the con tention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is that in the memo of revision no such plea was taken. The only plea taken in the memo of revision is that the revisionist has filed a suit for restitu tion of conjugal rights. That the said suit has been dismissed and therefore, the said plea is not being pressed arguments. It is also contended that the order of the Judge, Family Court show that the revisionist tried to delay the disposal of the proceedings.
(3.) CONSIDERING the circumstances and the facts that no such plea was taken in the memo of revision, that the maintenance should be ordered to be awarded from the date of the order. The argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist can not be accepted. No other point has been pressed before me in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;