PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the then learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 389 of 2006 (Smt. Uma Devi Srivastava and Master Vinay Kumar vs. Rajkumar Srivastava) under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the aforementioned judgment and order on the point of quantum of the maintenance allowance awarded to the opposite parties. It has been impressed upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the revisionist was unemployed and he was pursuing the various computer courses and also studying the law course. Later on, the revisionist was enrolled as a junior Advocate. But, due to paucity of funds, it would be too harsh upon the revisionist to pay such huge maintenance amount. The only prayer which has been insisted by the learned counsel for the revisionist is for the reduction of the already awarded maintenance allowance.;