PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) List has been revised. Sri S.K. Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsels for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. None responds on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Although, case is listed as peremptorily today.
(2.) While assailing the impugned judgement and order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur in Maintenance Case No.215 of 2013 (Amar Nath Shukla v. Suresh Chandra Shukla) ; Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist has emphatically argued that in this case such type of order may be passed by this Court which may send a strong message in the society.
(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist gets a very meagre amount as his pension and a very small amount as pension for the disabled person and being of old age the revisionist is unable to cultivate his agricultural holdings. It has been next argued that opposite party is son of revisionist and he bears some responsibility to maintain his father also. It has been also argued that since the total pension amount and the earnings from agricultural holdings are insufficient for the revisionist, the opposite party must spare some amount from his earnings as maintenance allowance for his father.;