Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

1. Case called out.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. However, Sri Himanshu Sooryavanshi, learned counsel for the State/ opposite party No.1 is present.

3. In view of the order which is proposed to be passed today, notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with.

4. The present criminal revision pertains to year 2015, therefore, the same is proposed to be disposed of on its own merits on the basis of record available before this Court with the assistance of Sri Himanshu Sooryavanshi, learned counsel for the State/ opposite party No.1.

5. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist to assail the impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.11, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2013 (Amit Misra vs. Smt. Anjula Misra), under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2005") and against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur in Case No.224 of 2008 on the application under Section 23 of Act, 2005.

6. Aggrieved by aforesaid two impugned judgment and orders, the instant revision came to be filed by the revisionist mainly on the ground that the impugned judgment and orders are wholly illegal and against the weight of evidence. The court below failed to take notice of the fact that opposite party No.2 had herself withdrawn her from the company of the revisionist, the husband. Therefore, she was not entitled to get any monitory relief from the revisionist.

7. The ground that the revisionist has a poor eye sight and does not earn anything was also not taken into consideration by the court below, therefore, the impugned judgment and orders need to be set aside being illegal on the face of it.

8. Having perused the record available before this Court, it transpires that the fact that opposite party No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist is not in dispute. The fact that whether the opposite party No.2 had voluntarily and willfully deserted the revisionist, is a question of fact to be determined after the parties adduced evidence to the aforesaid effect.

9. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that a meager amount of Rs.700/- only per month by way of interim maintenance has been awarded vide impugned order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the learned trial court, which has been maintained by the learned lower appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 19.05.2015, no illegality or irregularity with the same is decipherable at this stage on the basis of material/ records available before this Court. The same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity

10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned court below concerned for information/ necessary compliance forthwith.