P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) In proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. the Resident Magistrate Haridwar passed an order directing Ram Kumar to pay Rs. 150/- to Jitendra Kumar, his minor son under the custody of his mother Smt. Sulochana Devi wife of Ram Kumar. Against that order a revision was filed by Ram Kumar before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, which was dismissed on. 1st April, 1978, It appears that Ram Kumar failed to pay the maintenance allowance awarded by the Court to his minor son, with the result that the minor had to apply to the court for execution of the order. On 28th August, 1979, the Munsif Magistrate directed warrants to be issued for the attachment of moveable property belonging to the opposite party. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, which has been allowed on 9th December, 1979. Hence this revision.
(2.) It appears that in the instant case the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was filed before the Executive Magistrate on 15th April, 1975. That application took about 3 years in that court, when ultimately the Resident Magistrate Hardwar passed his order in favour of the minor child on 4th June, 1978. Ram Kumar thereafter filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, I have carefully perused the order of the Sessions Judge dated 1st April, 1978. Factual questions were argued before that court. The first question raised was that Jitendra Kumar was not the son of Ram Kumar, The revision court considered that question and concurred with the finding of the trial court that Jitendra Kumar is the son of Ram Kumar and that he is still minor aged about 6 years. He is thus entitled to maintenance allowance under Section 125(1)(b), Cr. P.C.
(3.) The second question argued before the court of revisions was that Smt. Sulochana Devi, the mother of the minor, had an independent source of livelihood and since the child was in her custody, she was bound to maintain him. This view of law was repelled rightly by the Sessions Judge.;