1. Heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri M. J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.01.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad allowing the maintenance application of the opposite party nos. 2 & 3, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding an amount of maintenance Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (minor) daughter from the date of the order in Maintenance Case No. 81 of 2012, Arshi Nizam & Another Vs. Gulrez Ahmad.

3. The impugned judgement and order has been mainly challenged on the ground that revisionist has divorced the opposite party no. 2 according to Islamic Shariat on 24.07.2011 in presence of the witnesses.

4. It is contended on behalf of revisionist that divorce has been communicated to the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant has also filed the affidavit of opposite party no. 2 dated 22.11.2011 in which she has admitted her divorce with the applicant and also admitted the receiving of amount of her mehar and the amount of maintenance during iddat period. It is next contended that opposite party no. 2 (wife) has contacted second marriage with one Mohd. Naseem @ Anni resident of 503, Shahganj, Allahabad and she is residing with him as his wife. In order to substantiate this fact the revisionist has filed the number of documentary evidence consisting of residential certificate issued by the S.D.M. Sadar, Allahabad. Copy of I.D. issued by the Election Commission of India and document relating to her mobile connection and the saving bank account, pass book etc. but the court below illegally disbelieved the said documentary evidence and held that opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the revisionist-applicant and has not contacted second marriage with Mohd. Naseem @ Anni. The next contention was that opposite party no. 2 did not give birth to opposite party no. 3 with the co-habitation of the revisionist-applicant. The place of birth of opposite party no. 3 shown by the opposite party no. 2 in the application filed by her is as Calvin Hospital, Allahabad while in her statement she stated the birth place as Dafrin Hospital, Allahabad. It is further contended that property statement filed by the revisionist establishes that her name recorded as co-sharer in the said property and she is getting sufficient money from the same and she is able to maintain herself. It is further contended that she is B.A. Pass an educated lady and is also having degree of Maullim. It is further contended that she has also inherited family property and running a beauty parlour in Jonstonganj, Allahabad and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from the same. So she has sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter. It is further contended that the revisionist has no permanent income and he is an unemployed person. It is further contended that finding of the court below regarding the six shops belonging to the revisionist, running a printing shop, letting out the five remaining shops and also running one diagnosis centre in the name of Indira Diagnosis and on that basis assessing the income of the revisionist as Rs. 30,000/- per month is illegal and against the weight of evidence.

5. It is next contended that revisionist is residing in a tenanted house and Smt. Fahmida Shaheen is not the mother of the applicant/revisionist. The name of the mother of the revisionist-applicant is Smt. Sayyada Begum. So the court below has wrongly believed the documentary evidence holding that revisionist-applicant has the ancestral property. It is next contended that the income of the revisionist-applicant initially assessed as Rs. 3,000/- per month but the court below has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- p