- (1.) V. K. Chaturvedi, J. This revision is preferred against the order dated 19-2-2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Case No. 512 of 1992 Smt. Meena Pandey v. Devki Nandan Pandey, under Section 125 Cr. P. C.
(2.) HEARD Divakar Rai Sharma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. I have perused the impugned order dated 19-2-2001. It does not suffer from any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. At this stage, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that since the revisionist is a poor man and it is beyond his capacity to pay the entire arrears of maintenance allowance to the respondent immediately, therefore, facility of making payment in easy instalments may be afforded to the revisionist.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the revisionist deposits entire arrears of maintenance allowance which comes to around Rs. 90,000 in three equal instalments, first instalment of Rs. 30,000 shall be payable by the revisionist by 22-4-2001, second instalment of Rs. 30,000 shall be payable by the revisionist by 22-7- 2001 and third and the last instalment of remaining amount shall be payable by 22-10-2000 then recovery of the arrears against the revisionist shall remain stayed. In addition to the payment of arrears of maintenance allowance as indicated above, the revisionist shall continue to pay the future maintenance amount to the respondent in terms of the impugned order regularly. It is, however, made clear that in the event of default by the revisionist in making payment of any of the instalments in the manner as indicated above, this order staying recovery against the revisionist shall automatically stand discharged and it will be open for the respondent to recover the entire amount from the revisionist. Revision dismissed. .;