N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THE opposite party No. 2 who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. in the Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Kanpur Nagar claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The revisionist contested the application and denied the allegations made therein. The Trial court found the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 proved and granted her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of application. Aggrieved by it the husband has come to this Court in revision. ( 2 ) IT is not necessary to go into the facts of the case because in the grounds of revision the judgment of the Trial Court has not been assailed on merits. It has been attacked on two grounds namely that the amount of maintenance granted is excessive and that; it has been granted from the date of application without assigning any reason. According to opposite party No. 2 the revisionist is a gangman and is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. This has not been disputed. In addition he must be getting D. A. Even a Class-IV employee of the Central Government who has put in some years of service normally gets about Rs. 2,000/- per month. In any case a person earning Rs. 1,500/- per month can very well spare Rs. 400/- per month for his wife. It would be difficult for a woman to keep her body and soul together in less than Rs. 400/- per month in these days of soaring prices. ( 3 ) IN Prem Lata Sahai v. Ram Narayan Sahai, 1991 S. C. C. (Criminal) 237, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "high Court should have shown better awareness of the plight of woman and should not have interfered with an order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife by the Trial Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. There was no warrant for reducing the amount from Rs. 400/-permonthtors. 350/- per month. So also the High Court should not have modified the order of the Trial Court by directing that maintenance should be paid from the date of order of the trial Court. " ( 4 ) IN view of the above ruling both the contentions of the revisionist fail. 400/-permonthtors. 350/- per month. So also the High Court should not have modified the order of the Trial Court by directing that maintenance should be paid from the date of order of the trial Court. " ( 4 ) IN view of the above ruling both the contentions of the revisionist fail. In this Court the copy of judgment dated 2. 5. 1994 passed by Civil Judge, Etawah in Matrimonial Case No. 58 of 1992 has been produced showing that the revisionists suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed ex parte. This judgment is subsequent to the judgment under revision. The scope of jurisdiction of the Re-visional Court Under Section 397 of the Code is limited to the extent of examining the property, correctness and legality of the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Events subsequent to the judgment can not be looked into in revision. The opposite party No. 2 was entitled to maintenance allowance on the date the judgment was passed by the Trial Court. The objection that she is not entitled to maintenance allowance after the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed should be taken at the time recovery is taken out of the maintenance allowance subsequent to the period of the date of decree of such suit. The result is that the revision has no force and is dismissed. .