- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 3-8-95 passed by Judge Family Court, Agra, al lowing the application under Section 125, Cr. PC. of the opposite-party Smt, Chandrawati and awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month to her and Rs. 200 per month to her minor daughter from the date of the application.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that there was com promise between the parties in pursuance of which the opposite party was given lump sum maintenance amounting to Rs. 25,000 and therefore, the Magistrate committed illegality in awarding the maintenance. THE revisionist has filed copy of the agreement which indicates that the opposite-party Smt. Chandrawati had agreed to live with her husband on the condition of her maintaining properly and also discharging his parental duties towards the daughter. In clause 8 it was stated that the revisionist has deposited Rs. 25. 000 in the name of second party (Smt. Chandrawati) which will continue to belong to her. The above agreement placed responsibility on the husband to maintain his wife and child. The learned Judge on considering the evidence concluded that the revisionist beat his wife and neglected to maintain her. He also held that the revisionist could not prove that any amount was deposited in the bank or post office. Thus there was violation of the terms of the agreement. In view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that she was not entitled to maintenance on account of agreement or in pursuance thereof any deposit has been made cannot be accepted. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The learned Counsel contended that the learned Judge committed error in awarding maintenance from the dale of application, which he could not do without recording reasons. This contention is without any force in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jagat Narain v. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. From the facts and circumstances the awarding of maintenance from the-date of applica tion appears to be justified.
(3.) THE revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;