JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. - This is a revision by the husband against an order passed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. by Sri Mool Chand, the then I Additional Magistrate Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1982. The learned Magistrate granted the petition of Smt. Savitri Devi, admitted wife of Rajendra Kumar Sharma, on 25.5.82 and allowed a maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month for herself and Rs. 50/- per month for her minor daughter born from the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the contention of the wife was that about 20 years ago from the date of the petition, the parties entered into a marriage according to Hindu rites. One daughter, who was 16 years of age on the date of petition, was born and then another daughter, who was 7 or 8 years old on the date of petition, was born. The husband had meanwhile started having illicit relations with one Shakuntala Nurse and at times he was keeping her at his house also and when it was resented by the wife she was beaten and ill treated and about 8 years prior to the petition she was turned out of the house and forced to live with her parents. The second daughter, namely Harash Lata is also living with the mother Smt. Savitri and hence she claimed a sum of Rs. 250/- as maintenance for herself and Rs. 100/- per month for each of the daughters. 3. Admittedly one daughter only is living with Smt. Savitri Devi. The husband has filed his written statement and his contention is that Smt. Savitri Devi is the only daughter of her parents who are extremely rich and as a condition of the marriage Rajendra Kumar Sharma started living with his in-laws. But his father-in-law is a drunkard and a debauch fellow and for that reasons he could not continue with them and when he pressed his wife to accompany him and live at a different place, she out right refused and hence for the last 8 years she is living with the younger daughter at her parents house of her own will. There is not even a single contention that the wife is able to maintain herself. The only allegation is that the father is a very rich person. 4. There is not even a single contention that the wife is able to maintain herself. The only allegation is that the father is a very rich person. 4. In support of the story put forth by Smt. Savitri Devi one Shiv Kumar entered into the witness-box as P.W. 2. It may be stated that this Shiv Kumar is real brother of Rajendra Kumar Sharma and he supports the version of the wife regarding keeping of a Nurse as a concubine by Rajendra Kumar Sharma. The contention of Rajendra Kumar Sharma is that he is living with his uncle in Bareilly. If that was a fact, the uncle would have been a good witness to state about the circumstances in which Rajendra Kumar Sharma was living and to set at naught the story given by the wife about keeping a concubine. 5. The learned Magistrate considered the entire evidence that was brought. Admittedly, the husband has a monthly income of Rs. 550/-. Admittedly again one of the minor daughters is living with the mother. Therefore, both mother and daughter were entitled to maintenance on the facts of the case and the learned Magistrate's order to this effect is justified. He has only awarded Rs. 150/- as maintenance allowance to the wife Smt. Savitri Devi and Rs. 50/- per month to the minor daughter Harash Lata. I do not find any mistake in this order. 6. The revision has no force and is hereby dismissed.