VIRENDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) REVISIONIST Vijendra Singh preferred this revision against the order dated 27.5.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge IInd (Fast Track Court) Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 299 of 2001, Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Vijendra Singh and others, in which the learned lower court has set aside the dismissal order dated 17.3.2001 passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aligarh, passed on an application under section 125 Cr.P.C moved by the respondent seeking maintenance and awarded a sum of Rs.800/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the respondent No.2 had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C against the revisionist on 16.1.1997 before the Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, Aligarh, in which the revisionist had filed an objection on 7.4.1999 thereby denying the allegation of the application and further stated that the respondent No.2 was not ready to reside in the village of the revisionist and she had pressurised the revisionist to reside in her Maika or in the city at Aligarh, for which the revisionist was not inclined. The respondent had ever used to go to her Maika without giving any information to the revisionist. The revisionist had given a registered notice on 16.12.1996 to the respondent No.2 residing in her Maika requesting her to reside with him but she did not return back to his house. It is also contended on behalf of the revisionist that the learned lower court on perusal of the evidence of both the parties on record had rejected the application of respondent No.2 seeking maintenance as per provisions under section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent No.2 preferred a revision before the Session Judge, Aligharh against the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge IInd (Fast Track Court ) Aligarh allowed the revision of the respondent No.2 erroneously because the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record had rejected the application of opposite party No. 2 and the learned revisional court arbitrarily passed the impugned order thereby allowing Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.2 thereby ignoring the facts that despite the best effort of the revisionist that the respondent No.2 should reside with the revisionist, the respondent No.2 deliberately ignored and refused to live with the revisionist.
(3.) NO one is appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned A.G.A is present on behalf of State, respondent No.1.;