- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
(2.) By the instant revision, revisionist questions the correctness of judgment dated 14.8.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge/Fast Track Court (New), Sitapur in Criminal Case/Maintenance Petition No. 613 of 2014 (Smt. Shaheen Bano and another Vs. Ahmad Husaind) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur where by application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 was allowed, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) per month to her daughter (opposite party no. 3) from the date of judgment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that impugned order is illegal, against facts and law and without applying judicial mind. Revisionist is ready to live with the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 but opposite party no. 2 is not ready to live with the revisionist, even then the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed in his favour. Opposite party no. 2 to went to her parent's house (mayaka) and did not return.;