- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This revision has been filed under Sections 397,401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 16-5-1998 passed by Additional Principal Family Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by which he awarded the maintenance of Rs. 500 to opposite party No. 2, Rs. 400 to opposite party No. 3 and Rs. 250 per month to each opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 from 29-11-1996 i. e. the date of the application.
(2.) I have heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite parties and the learned A. G. A. It is not disputed that the opposite party No. 2 is the wife, opposite party No. 3 is the daughter and opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are sons of the applicant. An application was made for their maintenance by the opposite party No. 2 which has been al lowed and the maintenance has been awarded as above. It is contended by the learned coun sel for the applicant that the applicant is a retired employee and getting Rs. 1,783 only as pension. That, therefore, the maintenance awarded is highly excessive. That he is not in a position to pay the main tenance of Rs. 1,400 awarded by the trial Court. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. The judgment of the trial Court shows that the applicant himself admitted that he is getting Rs. 2,500 as pension, therefore, the argument that he is getting Rs. 1,783 as pension can not be accepted.
(3.) NEXT it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant is that opposite party No. 2 is also in service and is earning a lot of amount. However, there is no evidence regarding it. Lastly, it is contended that the maintenance has been awarded from the date of the application. That huge amount has became due and the applicant, who is a pension holder cannot pay that amount. It is, therefore, prayed that the order be modined and me maintenance DC awarded from the date of the order.;