JUDGMENT :

Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Achyutanand Pandey, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda in Case No. 110/11 of 2014 (Smt. Meena Devi and others Vs. Mool Chandra) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., by which, the court concern has allowed the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/-per month to the opposite party no.2 Smt. Meena Devi and Rs. 2,000/-per month each to the opposite party no.3 Kumari Anju and opposite party no.4 Kumari Mansi from the date of the order. It has been further directed that the said amount shall be paid by 10th of every month to them.

3. The facts of the present case are that the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the revisionist who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 Smt. Meena Devi and the fath