- (1.) HEARD Shri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent and Shri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.341 of 2009 by which the learned Judge, on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, has allowed maintenance @ Rs.6,000/ - per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.4,000/ - per month to opposite party no.3 from the date of application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the court below has granted maintenance without application of mind, as the gross salary of the revisionist was about 26,000/ - per month, and therefore, learned court below has misconstrued the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned judgment. It was further submitted that version of opposite party no.2 was not supported by any documentary evidence. It was further submitted that the revisionist is already paying maintenance amount @ Rs.2,500/ - under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 to opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the revision and submitted in chorus that revisionist is software engineer and is earning about Rs.50,000/ - per month and keeping in view this income, the maintenance awarded by the court below is not at all excessive. party no.2 has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter. It was submitted she was being mentally and physically harassed by her in -laws and on account of this she had to returned to her parents house in a only cloth, she was wearing.;