JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi - II, J. 1. Both the criminal revisions have arisen out of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., filed by son against fatyher and application by wife against her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The father and husband is the same person, hence both the revisions are being taken together. 2. Heard Shri Satish Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists, and Shri S.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party. 3. Criminal Revision No.14 of 2005 has been filed challenging the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.55-C of 1999 (Master Anshul Sharma v. Mukesh Kumar Sharma) under Section 127 read with 126 (3) Cr.P.C. by which the application filed by the revisionist for enhancement of maintenance amount was partly allowed, and maintenance amount of Rs.300/- awarded vide order dated 22.5.1995 was enhanced to Rs.1000/- per month from the date of order dated 30.9.2004. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the inadequate enhancement. 4. Criminal Revision No.15 of 2005 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.704 of 1991, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (Smt. Archana Sharma and Mukesh Kumar Sharma). 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist, in both the cases, that there was irregularity and illegality in the summon issued to the opposite party. It was further submitted that the order is based on no evidence. It was further submitted that court below has not considered the true facts of the case and law, referred to by the learned counsel for the revisionist, and thus the order is liable to be set aside. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2005 that while deciding application proper procedure was not followed. No evidence of the parties was recorded, and the order has been passed ignoring realities of life and Rs.1000/- is not sufficient for maintenance of child studying in higher classes. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party in both the revisions submitted that while deciding application of Master Anshul, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner, and hence there was no evidence before the court below to show that what was the appropriate amount of maintenance. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party in both the revisions submitted that while deciding application of Master Anshul, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner, and hence there was no evidence before the court below to show that what was the appropriate amount of maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party in Criminal Revision No.15 of 2005 submitted that the finding given by the court below are findings of fact, and it cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction because the finding is based on evidence on record. 9. There is no denying of fact that Master Anshul Sharma was born on 3.2.1992 from the wedlock of Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Smt. Archana Sharma. There is also no denying of fact that Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Smt. Archana Sharma are legally wedded husband and wife. In view of the above, the only point, which is to be seen is that whether Smt. Archana is unable to maintain herself? 10. While rejecting application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court below has held that the revisionist has not adduced any documentary evidence to support her claim that she is unable to maintain herself, while the opposite party has adduced documentary evidence to show that Smt. Archana Sharma was working in Sahara India, and was getting Rs.5631/- per month after all deductions. The court below has held this after going through the certificate issued by Sahara India, Lucknow. 11. The court below has held on the basis of salary certificate filed by Mukesh Kumar Sharma that Smt. Archana Sharma is able to maintain herself. 12. It is also admitted to parties that a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending between the parties. 13. It is also admitted and is evident from the record and has been held by the court below that in the above petition an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed and Rs.500/- per month was granted as interim maintenance from 27.2.1993. 14. These findings of fact are based on evidence on record. While deciding criminal revision, revisional court need not interfere with the finding of fact, which is based on the evidence on record, as has been held in State of Kerala v. K.M. Abdullah and Co., AIR 1965 SC 1585 ; Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107 ; Associated Cement Co. While deciding criminal revision, revisional court need not interfere with the finding of fact, which is based on the evidence on record, as has been held in State of Kerala v. K.M. Abdullah and Co., AIR 1965 SC 1585 ; Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107 ; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand, 1997 DCR - 3 - 457 (SC); and Dulichand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 . 15. Learned counsel for the revisionists has referred several decisions in the cases of (1) Ajai Kumar Verma v. Smt. Malti Verma and others, 1994 LLJ 79 (DB); (2) Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and others, AIR 1987 SC 1807; (3) T. Rajender Singh v. Smt. Maya Devi alias Gayatri and others, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2384; (4) Ashok Pal Singh v. Smt. Manjulata, AIR 2008 MP 139 ; (5) Vallabhaneni YeduKondalu alias Karunakaran Rao v. Vallabhaneni Nagswaramma alias Karuna Kumari and others, 2002 (2) Femi Juris CC 517; (6) Veena Panda v. Debendra Kishore Panda, 2006 (24) LCD 677 (DB); (7) Smt. Renu Jain v. Mahavir Prasad Jain, AIR 1987 SC 43 (DB); (8) Mihir Narain Mohanty v. Sadyalaxmi Patnaik, 1 (1991) DMC 425 (Orissa); (9) Pratima Singh v. Dr. Abhimanyu Singh Parihar, (1986) DMC 301; (10) Pradeep Kumar Kapoor v. Shailja Kapoor, AIR 1989 Delhi 10; (11) Sri Basant Lal v. State of U.P. And another, 1995 JIC 419 (Allahabad); (12) S.C. Minakshi Gaur v. Chitranjan Gaur, 2009 (1) LcrR 507; (13) Harish Chandra Yadav v. Usha, 2008 (1) ALJ 684; (14) Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena, II (2001) DMC 505; (15) Manmohani Jindal v. Tarsem Chand Jindal, I (2003) DMC 708 (P & H); (16) Smt. Krishna Kumari v. Fourth Add. District Hamirpur, AIR 1989 Allahabad 198; (17) Vijay Kumar v. Suresh Kumar, 2001 (3) Femi Juris CC 10 (Raj.); (18) G. Vidya v. S. Manivarma, 2005 (2) HLR (Mad) 303; and (19) Archana Sharma v. Mukesh Kumar Sharma in FAFO Nos.72 of 2004 and 73 of 2004 (Hon'ble High Court Lucknow Bench Judgement), but they are not relevant for deciding the present controversy in question, as (1) to (5) relate to irregularity and illegality of sum. (6) to (10) relate to determination of maintenance amount, (11) to (15) relate to order of maintenance from the date of petition and (16) to (19) relate to interest on arrears as per order of award. In view of above discussions, criminal revision no.15 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed. 16. So far as criminal revision no.14 of 2005 is concerned, a perusal of impugned order reveals that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was separately moved by the revisionist in Case No.236 of 1992, and it was decided on 22.5.1995, after a compromise of the date between the mother of the revisionist and Mukesh Kumar Sharma, and Rs.300/- per month was awarded for maintenance to Master Anshul Sharma. At that time, he was aged about two years and three months. When the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved, he was aged about 8 years, and allegedly was studying in class II. It was mentioned in the petition that this amount is too meagre, hence it be enhanced. When no evidence oral or documentary was filed on behalf of Master Anshul Sharma, then an order of the court below enhancing maintenance allowance from Rs.300/- to Rs.1000/- cannot be said to be improper and amount inadequate. 17. It was for the revisionists to prove by evidence that what were the expense, he was incurring in his studies and other things, but when there was no such evidence on record, then the order cannot be said to be illegal and perverse or not based on record. 18. In view of the aforesaid, both the criminal revisions are liable to be dismissed, and are hereby dismissed.