- (1.) M. A. Khan, J. Heard, the parties learned counsel.
(2.) 1 have gone through the records for petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate granted the maintenance on the petition under Sec tion 125 Cr. P. C. and directed the payment of Rs. 150 per month to the child Kamar Alam. However, to the wife the main tenance was allowed on certain conditions. On revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge set-aside the entire order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and the present revision has been filed. I have gone through the records. The order passed by the learned IV-Addl. Session Judge so far as it relates to the petitioner No. 2 Kamar Alam is illegal. There was absolutely no justification with the learned IV-Addl. Sessions Judge for dismissing the petition for maintenance by a small child aged about 5 years. The wife was reluctant to join the company of the husband. The child was not to be blamed for that because the child was in the cus tody of the mother. However, the child aforesaid is still entitled for the main tenance from the father.
(3.) THE revision is accordingly al lowed. THE impugned order passed by the learned IV-Addl. Session Judge so far as it relates to revisionists No. 2 Kamar Alam is set-aside. It is directed that the opposite party No. 2 Mohd. Naseem Khan shall pay a sum of Rs. 150 per month by way of maintenance to the petitioner No. 2 Kamar Alam from the date of the order by the learned Magistrate as-far as the claim of the petitioner No. 1 wife is concerned, it is rightly rejected by the learned IV-Addl. Sessions Judge and it requires no inter ference by this Court. With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .;