V.N.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th July, 1988 by Sri O.P. Bansel, IIIrd Addl. District and Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 253 of 1987, Setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 passed by Smt. Ranjana Pandey. First Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, awarding maintenance Rs. 250/- per month to the present applicant, Smt. Gulistan, from the date of application till 26.11.1927 which is the date of divorce.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Smt. Gulistan moved an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband Sabir who is the present opposite party No. 1 praying for grant of maintenance Rs. 500/- per month. She asserted that the opposite party, Sabir, had treated her with cruelty and had also turned her out from his house. She also alleged that the opposite party had refused to maintain her. According to her, the opposite party was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. The opposite party made the allegations about unchastity of the applicant in his written statement. He also denied that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. The learned Magistrate held that the opposite party was earning not less than 500/- per month in any case. It was also held that the applicant was unable to maintain herself and that she has sufficient reason to live separately from the husband. On these finding maintenance Rs. 250/- per month was awarded to the applicant from the date of application to 26.11.1987 as it was held that the opposite party No. 1 had divorced the applicant on 28.11.1987 during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The husband, Sabir, filed a revision against the order by the learned Magistrate; that revision was allowed by order dated 6.7.1988 by the IIIrd Add. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. In the present revision filed by Smt. Gulistan it has been asserted that the order by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was illegal and there was no reason for setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the opposite parties. The judgment by the learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 6th July, 1988 shows that he has not allowed the revision on merits but has allowed it merely on the ground that the learned Magistrate should have given reasons for allowing maintenance from the date of applicant and not from the date of order and as such reasons have not been furnished by him, his order was not valid.;