MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) The revisionists are aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in case No. 403 of 2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 whereby the learned court below has refused to award any maintenance to the revisionist no. 1 and has awarded a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the revisionist no. 2 with effect from the date of the application till December, 2016 and thereafter Rs. 3000 per month till he attains majority.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
(3.) It is an admitted fact between the parties that the revisionist no. 1 is the wife of the opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist no. 2 is the minor son which was born out of their wedlock. The marriage was performed on 23.02.2012. However, after sometime of marriage, the relations between them became strained and they decided to live separately. The revisionist no. 2 is now aged about four years and is living with his mother revisionist no. 1. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party no. 2 has already filed a case under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining divorce. The opposite party no. 2 is also facing criminal case. The revisionists have claimed maintenance on the ground that when in the moth of October, 2012, the revisionist no. 1 became pregnant, the opposite party no. 2 and his family member tried for miscarriage but fortunately it could not happen. According to the revisionists, this was done because the parents of the revisionist no. 1 failed to fulfil the demand of dowry. It is said that on 27.12.2012, the revisionist no. 1 was forcibly evicted from her matrimonial home. While the revisionist no. 1 was living with her parents, she gave birth to the revisionist no. 2 on 11.04.2013. The revisionists alleged in their application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 that they are unable to maintain themselves while the opposite party no. 2 is an Income Tax Inspector and his monthly salary is about Rs. 40,000/-.;