N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 4. 12. 1995 passed by principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 397 of 1994 Under Section 125 cr. P. C. granting maintenance allowance to Smt. Nagina Khatoon opposite party No. 2 and her son at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the application. Smt. Nagina Khatoon is admittedly the - legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Zeeshan is admittedly their son. ( 2 ) THE application was filed on the ground of cruelty alleging that she was married to the revisionist in the year 1990 but he started beating her and treating her cruelly asking her to bring refrigerator and other articles in dowry which her father was unable to afford and, therefore, she was forced to leave his house. The revisionist contested the application denying the allegations made in the appplication and stating that the opposite party No. 2 is the only daughter of her parents that she and her parents insisted that she should reside with his in-laws to which he did not agree and, therefore, opposite party No. 2 left his house and started living with her father. He filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and as counter blast to it she filed the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court believed the version of the opposite party No. 2 and granted the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application. Aggrieved by it the husband has come to this Court in revision. ( 4 ) THIS revision lies under Section 19 (4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 and not under the provisions of Cr. P. C. It should have been filed and registered as a civil revision. The revision against the judgment of the Family Court is legally maintainable and therefore, it is not necessary to return the memo of revision for filing under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and to be registered as a civil revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. Three points have been urged. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. Three points have been urged. The first is that the Trial Judge without assigning any reason could not have granted the maintenance allowance from the date of application, second that amount of maintenance is excessive and beyond the capacity to pay of the revisionist and third that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights is pending and till that suit was decided the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. should not have been granted. ( 5 ) IN Prem Lata Sahai v. Rant Niranjan Sahai, 1991 S. C. C. (Criminal) 237, the Supreme Court stated that "high Court should have shown better awareness of the plight of women 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/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month. So also the High Court should not have modified the order of the Trial Court by directing that maintenances should be paid from the date of order of the Trial Court. " In view of the above ruling the first contention on behalf of the revisionist has no force. The maintenance is also granted to stop vegerancy on the part of the wife and to give her a suitable amount to keep her body and soul together. In these days of high prices amount of rs. 500/- cannot be said to be excessive. At the time the application was filed the son of the parties was of about 14 months of age. He would require milk and other suitable diet to keep him healthy and free from illness. After some time he would require education in a school. In these circumstances, a sum of Rs. 500/- cannot be said to be excessive. As regards the capacity of the revisionist to pay Rs. 500/- per month it may be noted that his father is carrying on a shop in the name of Auto Centre for repairing vehicles. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the revisionist would be plying rickshaw, doing manual labour and repairing the cycle tubes. He admitted in his statement that he is also mending the punctures of two wheelers. 500/- per month it may be noted that his father is carrying on a shop in the name of Auto Centre for repairing vehicles. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the revisionist would be plying rickshaw, doing manual labour and repairing the cycle tubes. He admitted in his statement that he is also mending the punctures of two wheelers. In the circumstances the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that his monthly income is Rs. 1200/ -. His father is running an Auto repairing shop and as such it cannot be said that it is the responsibility of the revisionist to maintain his parents, brothers and sisters. In this view of the matter the sum of Rs. 500/- cannot be said to be excessive. ( 6 ) THE suit for restitution of conjugal rights is no doubt pending but that would not deprive the opposite party No. 2 of her maintenance allowance. In case the suit for restitution is decreed and the opposite party No. 2 fails to honour the decree then the revisionist would be entitled to take appropriate steps in the matter including the application to the Family Judge to pass appropriate orders in view of the changed circumstances. ( 7 ) IN Pathumma and Anr. v. Muhammad, 1986 S. C. C. (Crl.) 212, it was held in a case under section 126 Cr. P. C. that "magistrates findings of fact under Section 125 based on evidence not open to interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401". In view of the above no case for interfering in the order passed by the Judge, Family Court has been made out. The revision is dismissed at the admission stage. .