The opposite party No. 2 moved an application against the revisionist under Section 125, Cr PC. On that application she has been awarded maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month by Principle Judge, Family Court, Kanpur (Nagar) by order dated 3-8-1999. Ag grieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

2. I have heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Sri A. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the op posite party No, 2 and the learned A. G. A. and have gone through the record. The affidavits have been exchanged.

3. It is contended that the revisionist is ready to keep the opposite party No. 2. However, the opposite party No. 2 has claimed separate residence and main tenance on the ground of cruelty and ill-treatment by the revisionist. The entire evidence has been considered. The revisionist also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights but later on it was got dis missed on 5-10-1998 by order, Annexure No. CA- 1 passed by Principle Judge, Fami ly Court, Kanpur (Nagar ). In the cir cumstances there was sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance.

4. Next it is contended that income of the revisionist has not been assessed and maint