- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. G. P. Dikshit, learned counsel representing the revisionist. None appears tor the opposite party.
(2.) THE challenge against the im pugned judgment and order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in case No. 1173 of 1988 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. dated 22-5-1996 is that the maintenance amount of Rs. 500 p. m. is on higher side and that the order directing the payment of maintenance from the date of application i. e. 13-12-1988 is not based on good reasons. The learned Family Judge dis cussed the competence and the pecuniary condition of the husband at page 8 of the typed copy of the impugned judgment and it discloses that the husband himself ad mitted that he gets Rs. 4,000 as monthly salary in his Bank service. Considering this competence of the husband the amount of Rs. 500p. m. allowed to thewife for month ly maintenance is not on higher side. Accordingly this objection of Sri Dikshit is rejected. The second argument about the reasons for allowing maintenance from the date of application also find noted at page 8 of the typed copy of impugned judgment where the learned Family Judge has observed that the opposite party has intentionally delayed the disposal of the application for maintenance and so in the interest of justice he has allowed the main tenance from the date of application.
(3.) THIS reason given by the learned Family Judge is also convincing and jus tified. This Court does not find any laches or weakness in the monthly amount of maintenance or in the direction to pay the maintenance amount from the date of application i. e. 13-12-1988. The revision petition does not dis close merit and the same is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands discharged. Revision petition dismissed. .;