Prafulla C. Pant, J.:-

This revision, is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in criminal revision No. 10 of 2004, whereby said court has allowed the revi­sion and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to his wife (present responuent No. 1).

2. Heard learned counsel for the re­visionist and learned A.G.A. None ap­peared on behalf of respondent No. 1 even after being served sufficiently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that re-visionist-Vinod Kumar, got married to re­spondent Vijaya Devi in the year 1995. Out of wedlock, in the year 2000, a fe­male child was born. An application was filed by respondent-Vijaya Devi, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., against the revision­ist, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It is pleaded by her that she is unable to maintain herself. It is also stated by her that the revisionist has means to pay the maintenance but he is neglecting to maintain her. The trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh), recorded the evidence and dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the respondent- Vijaya Devi, lives separate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document