Hon’ble Ram Autar Singh, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Case No. 1123 of 2005 (Smt. Usha and others v. Mahendra Pal Singh).

2. It transpires from the record that an application was moved by the revisionist No. 1 Smt. Usha under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance of revisionists No. 2 to 4 with this allegation that the revisionist No. 1 Smt. Usha was married with respondent No. 1 Mahendra Pal Singh on 3.4.1990 and out of their wedlock revisionists No. 2 to 4, namely, Km. Sakshi, Km. Nishtha and Umang were born and thereafter dissolution of their marriage under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act took place. The respondent No. 1 is a B.A.M.S. doctor and he has been living separately from his family for last two years and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month out of his agricultural land apart from income out of his medical practice. Before dissolution of marriage the respondent No. 1 has also married with another woman belonging to Tanakpur District Champawat (Uttrakhand), who has been working as teacher in Primary School and earning Rs. 1500/ per month. Each of the revisionists No. 2 to 4 has claimed Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance allowance as none of them have any source of income.

3. The respondent No. 1 in his written statement alleged that petition No. 457 of 2005 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was moved by the parties on 6.7.2005, which was dismissed on 13.1.2006 in absence of revisionist No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has no house or agricultural property and he has been earning Rs. 1200/- per month by way of working in a clinic of a doctor but the said doctor has expelled him and as such he is unemployed. The respondent No. 1 has not married with any woman, while revisionist No. 1 being a teacher in Primary Pathshala, Khadoua has been earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and she has been residing in adultery with a police constable, namely, Jasram Singh posted in Kotwali.

4. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence dismissed the prayer under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance of Km. Sakshi and Km. Nishtha on the ground of their being major but allowed maintenance allowance of revisionist No. 3 Umang awarding Rs. 500/- per month with effect from the date of the order, aggrieved by which the revisionists filed this revision.

5. I have heard Shri R. N. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 2 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 to oppose this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the maintenance allowance awarded in favour of the revisionist No. 4 is very low and insufficient. The respondent No. 1 has been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing medical practice in Bareilly but the Court below has recorded its perverse finding in this regard. Moreover respondent No. 1 has agricultural land measuring 14 1/2 bighas in his village out of which he has been earning some amount. The revisionist No. 1 is still legally wedded wife of respondent No. 1 and the revisionists No. 2 and 3 are his daughters and they are entitled for maintenance allowance till their marriage but the learned Court below has dismissed the claim of revisionists No. 2 and 3 without considering the above facts and circumstances.

7. A perusal of record goes to show that the learned trial Court has observed that revisionist No. 1 Smt. Usha has not claimed any maintenance allowance for herself on the ground that she has been earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of working as teacher in primary school but the respondent No. 1 has been earning sufficient income by carrying on his medical profession.

8. This finding has been recorded by the learned trial Court that the revisionists No. 2 and 3 have become major and thus they are not entitled to get maintenance allowance. No material has been p