Honble Virendra Singh, J.—Revisionist Raju, preferred this revision against the Judgement and order dated 11.4.2001 passed by Judge, Family Court, Agra, in case No. 396 of 1996 through which learned Judge has allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 as maintenance allowance from 17.9.1999, the date of application filed by respondent No. 2 before the Family Court, Agra.

2. At the time of hearing of this revision, no one appeared on behalf of revisionist while leaned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned A.G.A on behalf of respondent the State of U.P. remained present, who have been heard on this revision as per grounds mentioned in the memo of this revision.

3. As per grounds mentioned in the memo of this revision, the impugned order is said to have been passed by the Court below awarding Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application, is against the law as well as on the facts of the case because Smt. Dimpal, opposite party No. 2, refused to live with the revisionist without any sufficient reason and the financial conditions of the revisionist is very poor, while the respondent No. 2, Smt. Dimpal knows the art of painting, sewing and weaving etc by which she earns Rs. 1500/- per month. The Court below even did not consider the proviso under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in which it is provided that wife is not entitled for any maintenance in case she refuses to live with her husband. It is further stated that the Court below has illegally awarded the maintenance from the date of application with no reasons for awarding it from the date of application which is now mandatory under the law.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well learned A.G.A on behalf of State of U.P. submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order either on the facts of this case or in the eyes of law as the lower Court has rightly found the revisionist under obligation to maintain his wife and awarded maintenance allowance at a rate of Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2, which is neither excessive nor there is any illegality in awarding of maintenance from the date of application.

5. In the light of contentions raised on behalf of respondents in reference to the grounds mentioned in the memo of this revision, I have gone through the entire facts and circumstances on record. The law is very much well known as is held in various cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by High Courts in this country, which is summarized as below.

"The revisionary Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401, Cr.P.C. Section 397, Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the irregularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court. It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise of appellate powers. Section 401, Cr.P.C. conferring power of Appellate Court on the Revision Court is with the above limited purpose. Section 395 to 401, Cr.P.C. read together do not indicate that the revisionary power of the High Court can be exercised as the consequent of appellate power. The revision powers though very wide are purely discretionary, to be fairly exercised according to the exigencies of each case. It is very well settled that it is normally to be exercised only in unexceptional case if there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on any point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. These powers are extraordinary powers which must be exercised with due regard to the circumstances of each particular case. High Court will not interfere on a technical ground, but may only