- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. These revisions arise out of the order dated 17-11-94 passed by Judge, Family Court, Agra rejecting the prayer of the applicant Smt. Indra Kumari Sharma for award of main tenance while allowing her prayer for grant of maintenance to her minor children at the rate of Rs. 300 per month from the date of application dated 2-8-91 till their minority. The applicant Smt. Indra Kumari felt aggrieved by the refusal of her prayer to award her maintenance filed Criminal Revision No. 1783 of 1994. The husband Suresh Chandra Sharma fell aggrieved with the order awarding main tenance to the children preferred Criminal Revision No. 1797 of 1994. As both the revisions arise out of the same order they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE revisionist Suresh Chandra Shamra was represented by Sri Ranjil Saxena while Smt. Indra Kumari was rep resented by Sri V. K. Chaturvedi. Despite the list being revised neither of the Coun sel was present, and therefore, these revisions are being disposed of without hearing the learned Counsel. Smt. Indra Kumari filed an applica tion under Section 125, Cr. P. C. on the ground that her husband Suresh Chandra Sharma turned her and the minor daughter and son aged 8 years and 6 years respectively from his house and they have no means to maintain them. The opposite-party has earning of Rs. 2,000 per month. Therefore, she is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 500 lor herself and equal amount iur each of the children. The opposite party Suresh Chandra Sharma contested the applica tion, inter alia, that his wife left with the children of her own accord and he was compelled to file a suit for conj ugal righls which was decided ex parte in his favour. Despite the decree the is not willing to live with him and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance.
(3.) THE learned Judge Family Court on appraisal of evidence held that Smt. Indra Kumari was not honouring the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and, there fore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He, however, found the children entitled to maintenance. As aforesaid both the parties felt aggrieved preferred revisions. In the memo of revision Tiled by Suresh Chandra Sharma it has been slated that the grant of maintenance of Rs. 600 per month tor children was in direct relief in favour of Smt. Indra Kumari though she-was not found any maintenance. On this ground it was slated that the order suffered from illegality. This contention raised in the memo is without any merit. Under Section 125, Cr. RC the children are also entitled to get the maintenance. They can not be refused maintenance on the ground that the money will be utilised by the mother. The mother is expected to spend the amount of maintenance of her children. The order passed does not suffer from any illegality.;