Hon’ble Aniruddha Singh, J.—Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.N. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against judgment and order dated 31.5.1994 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 508 of 1983 under Section 125 Cr.P.c. Thereby revisionist Sanjai Shukla was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to his wife Smt. Geeta Shukla from the date of application i.e. 25.8.1993.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that impugned order was passed illegally on the basis of evidence given by both parties on affidavits only and the maintenance awarded by the Court concerned from the date of application is wrong; Smt. Geeta Shukla was living in adultery and one daughter was born after desertion.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party Smt. Geeta Devi opposed the contention of counsel for the revisionist.

5. It is admitted fact between the parties that evidence was adduced by both the parties by affidavits only and no cross-examination was done. It was held by this Court in the ca