Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 08.10.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Ballia in Case No. 11 of 2011 (Devrati Vs. Dev Saran), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., PS-Bheempura, District-Ballia whereby the trial judge has allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that award of maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month is very meagre amount. The next point of contention is that the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the revisionist by the trial court from the date of the order and not from the date of application. It is next contended that opposite party no. 2 (husband of the revisionist-applicant) is presently earning Rs. 12 ,000/- as pension and despite that only Rs. 1,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance allowance by the trial judge. It is next contended that learned trial judge as per material available on record found that opposite party no. 2 earned Rs. 8,000/- per month by his pension. It is next contended that applicant/revisionist is an old aged lady of 59 years and she is struggling for her livelihood and not able to maintain herself.;