JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J. List has been revised. None present on behalf of the revisionist. Learned AGA is present. 2. Heard learned AGA and perused the pleadings of the criminal revision. 3. This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 07.02.2007 by which the Principal Judge Family Court has partially allowed the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.500/- per month to the wife and one child namely Aman Srivastava w.e.f. 14.10.1999 till 23.9.2001 and Rs.1000/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child w.e.f. 24.09.2001 to the date of order and Rs.1000/- each from the date of order. 4. An application was moved by Smt. Vimmy Srivastava under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging therein that she was married with Pramod Ranjan Srivastava in the year 1996 in which adequate dowry, according to the capacity, was given but her matrimonial relatives were not satisfied with the dowry and were harassing and torturing her. In the year 1997, when she was pregnant, she was sent to her parents' home. After birth of a son, she went to her matrimonial house, where again she was tortured and was threatened that if the demand of dowry is not meant, she will be killed by burning in the night. She again left her matrimonial house and after that, she is living at her parents' house. It was alleged that she is not able to maintain herself. It was also alleged that Sri Pramod Ranjan Srivastava has been working in a government service, after the death of his father, and is earning Rs.7000/- per month and also earn Rs.3000/- as rent. Sri Pramod Ranjan Srivastava filed objection admitting the marriage and birth of son but he has denied the allegation of demand of dowry. It was further submitted that the wife is a practicing advocate at Lucknow and is able to maintain herself. 5. The learned Court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether Smt. Vimmi Srivastava is able to maintain herself ? 2. Whether Smt. Vimmi Srivastava and her child Aman Srivastava are entitled to receive any amount from Sri Pramod Ranjan Srivastava. It was further submitted that the wife is a practicing advocate at Lucknow and is able to maintain herself. 5. The learned Court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether Smt. Vimmi Srivastava is able to maintain herself ? 2. Whether Smt. Vimmi Srivastava and her child Aman Srivastava are entitled to receive any amount from Sri Pramod Ranjan Srivastava. While deciding these issues, the Court below has held that Smt. Vimmi Srivastava is not able to maintain herself and her child and as such, they are entitled to Rs.500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 14.10.1999 till 23.09.2001 and w.e.f. 24.09.2001 Rs.1000/- to Smt. Vimmi Srivastava and Rs.500/- to her son Aman Srivastava to the date of the order i.e. 07.02.2007 and after the order, both are entitled to Rs.1000/- each from Sri Pramod Ranjan Srivastava. 6. The finding given by the Court below are finding of fact and the revisional court cannot upset the finding of fact as has been held in the case of Munni Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2002 SC 107 ; Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1975 SC 1960 ; and Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . 7. In the case of Parvati Rani Sahu vs. Vishnuppada Sahu; 2002 (10) SCC 310, it has been held that the revisional court has no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its own finding and the finding of facts cannot be reopened at the revisional stage and the revisional court cannot substitute its own view. 8. A perusal of the order reveals that there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the Court below. The order is based on evidence on record. 9. The Revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.