- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 7-6-99 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agra under Section 125, Cr. P. C. by which he awarded the maintenance of Rs. 500 per month to the opposite party No. 2 from the applicant from 3-3-92 i. e. from the date of application.
(2.) I have heard Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the applicant Sri V. S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the op posite party No. 2 and have gone through the record. It is contended that the amount of maintenance awarded is very excessive. That the applicant is earning Rs. 1,800 per month only and he is in Government job. The trial Court has wrongly held his in come to be for Rs. 5,000 per month. I have considered the arguments. In my opinion the amount awarded is not excessive. The applicant did not lead any evidence before the Judge, Family Court regarding his income. It is admitted that the applicant is in Government service. The opposite party No. 2 has alleged that he is earning Rs. 4,000 5,000 per month and he is also earning Rs. 30 35 per day by cleaning the ears and therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly accepted evidence regarding income and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.
(3.) IT is also contended that opposite party No. 2 is also earning her livelihood and is not entitled to maintenance. Copy of the statement of Manoj son of applicant has been filed. Manoj has admittedly been living with opposite party No. 2. He has stated that opposite party No. 2 is working in the Bungalows, but has denied the sug gestion that she is earning Rs. 500 600 per month. In my opinion from working at the Bungalow opposite party No. 2 cannot earn sufficient amount for her livelihood. IT cannot be accepted that she is earning livelihood. In the affidavit, it has also been pleaded by the applicant that opposite party No. 2 is not his wife. This fact was not argued before me.;