- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri S. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for op posite parties No. 2 and 3 and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE applicant is the father of op posite parties No. 2 and 3, who are minors. THEy moved an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. through their mother, on which the maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/- each was granted to them. On their subsequent application under Section 127, Cr. P. C. through their mother the main tenance allowance has been enhanced to Rs. 500/- each by the impugned order dated 4-3-98 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed. The main grievance of the ap plicant is that there was a written agree ment between the applicant and the mother of opposite parties No. 2 and 3, according to which the marriage was dis solved and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were given in the custody of their mother on the specific condition that she would not claim any maintenance from the ap plicant. It is further contended that the applicant moved an application to recall the order of granting maintenance of Rs. 100/- each to opposite parties No. 2 and 3 on the basis of agreement. On that applica tion the matter was kept for hearing on 12-3-96 and the order of maintenance was stayed. The mother of minor opposite par ties No. 2 and 3 also filed objections. The only contention is that the said application of the applicant was not con sidered at all in the judgment enhancing the maintenance by the impugned order. The perusal of the order shows that there is no reference of the said application and the agreement in that order. A copy of the order dated 17-2- 96 has been filed, which shows that the application of the applicant was pending. Therefore, it is also necessary for the trial Court to consider that applica tion while he was considering the applica tion of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 for enhancement of maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order of the Principal Judge, Family Court is fit to be set aside.
(3.) THE revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 4-3-98 is set aside. THE matter is sent back for re-decision on the application under Section 127, Cr. P. C. of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 along with the application of the applicant for setting aside the order of maintenance. Revision allowed. .;