1. Heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kasganj in Case No. 435 of 2014 (Smt. Minakshi Vs. Vineet Kumar), whereby the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application.

3. The impugned judgment and order has been assailed by the revisionist on the ground that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not considered the source of maintenance possessed by the revisionist-husband and has committed gross error by granting excessive amount of maintenance to the opposite party no.2-wife, because his parents are also dependant upon his earning and more so, has awarded the maintenance from the date of the application without giving any cogent reasons.

4. The brief facts of the case of the opposite party no.2-wife is that admittedly the opposite party no.2, Smt. Mi