Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

2. By the instant revision, revisionist questions the correctness of judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by Additional Principal Judge (Family Court)/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 181 of 2016 ( Smt. Sharmina vs. Taufeeq) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2600/- per month as maintenance to his wife/opposite party no. 2 from the date of judgment i.e. 28.10.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that impugned order is bad in law, against the evidence on record, illegal and arbitrary as opposite party No.2 is living in adultery with a man called 'Dealer' and he has submitted a photograph before the lower Court in proof of this fact. Opposite party no. 2 has left company of revisionist due to non-fulfillment of physical and other demands. She has also sent notice of 'Talak' to the revisionist and she is not ready to live with him. The lower Court has wrongly given finding that revisionist is a healthy person and he may easily earn Rs.7000-8000/-