N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19. 5. 92 passed by IIIrd addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Case No. 53 of 1990 under Section 125 Cr. P. C. granting maintenance allowance to Opp. Party No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and their son at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of application i. e. , 14. 3. 89. ( 2 ) THE application was filed upon the aliegations that Opp. Party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Out of this wedlock a son was born. The revisionist was posted as guard in a bank but subsequently he was enrolled as constable in the police force. He was posted out of district Kanpur Dehat where he entered into second marriage and refused to keep the Opp. Party no. 2 and their son with him. It was also said that the revisionist is getting Rs. 2000/- per month as salary and, therefore, can easily secure Rs. 900/- month for her and their son. ( 3 ) THE contention of the revisionist was that he was no-doubt married with Opp. Party No. 2 but subsequently with common consent they had divorced each other and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance. The other allegations made by her were also denied. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court believed the contention of the Opp. Party No. 2 and in the the alternative came to the conclusion that even if the divorce had on place between the parties, as alleged by the revisionist, he cannot escape hum giving maintenance allowance to the Opp. Party No. 2. The result was that the application was allowed as stated above. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties have been heard and the material placed on record has been perused. The revisionist filed in the Trial Court the Photostat copy of Talaqnama and the photostat copy of the affidavit of Badlu and Parmeshwardin. These photo-copies were not admissible in evidence. Notice given to him on the application of a mahila constable who had complained that the revisionist was a married person but concealing this fact from her she was persuaded to marry him. Copy of the departmental enquiry report has also been filed. These photo-copies were not admissible in evidence. Notice given to him on the application of a mahila constable who had complained that the revisionist was a married person but concealing this fact from her she was persuaded to marry him. Copy of the departmental enquiry report has also been filed. These papers have however, not been proved as required. They cannot, therefore, be read in evidence. ( 6 ) THE existence of marriage has not been disputed. The Opp. Party No. 2 in her statement clearly gave out that after the marriage she lived for about 8 years with the revisionist, a son was born out of this wedlock, who is aged about 7 years and that she was cruelly treated, beaten and turned out of the house and then he married a woman constable. ( 7 ) THE revisionist examined himself and gave out that the Opp. Party No. 2 remained with him for about one and a half years and then the relations between them became strained on account of which Panchayat was held in which both of them decided to live separately. He filed the compromise said to have been arrived at between them on 25. 6. 85. This Talaqnama or compromise cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that any custom prevailed amongst their community to seek divorce in the manner as alleged. It may also be noted that Opp. Party No. 2 denied any such agreement between them. She also denied her thumb impression over this agreement. It cannot, therefore, be said that the agreement of divorce has been proved as required by law. It further appears that in the year 1989 the revisionist married Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and probably thereafter the woman constable kusumlata. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that this agreement of divorce has not been legally proved. ( 8 ) IT further appears that at the time the revisionist applied for recruitment in the police force he stated himself to be an unmarried person. From this it is clear that the revisionist wanted to marry another woman as he had turned Opp. Party No. 2 out of his house and, therefore, started saying himself to be an unmarried person. No reason is forthcoming as to why the Opp. Party no. From this it is clear that the revisionist wanted to marry another woman as he had turned Opp. Party No. 2 out of his house and, therefore, started saying himself to be an unmarried person. No reason is forthcoming as to why the Opp. Party no. 2 should have refused to live with the revisionist. ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances the Trial Court rightly held that the revisionist cruelly treated his wife and refused to maintain her and their son. The sum of Rs. 900/- per month awarded cannot be said to be excessive in these days of soaring period. The son has also to be given education and properly looked after. ( 10 ) THE maintenance allowance was granted from the date of application. From the material placed oh record it is clear that the revisionist has not only turned the Opp. Party No. 2 out of his house but he is also harassing her in more than one ways. He took false pleas in the written statements and also came to the High Court once before. He has been delaying the disposal of the application and, therefore, the maintenance allowance was rightly granted from the date of application. The revision has no force and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated. .