1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.930/2008 KALLO @ KALAWATI & ANOTHER V. STATE & ANOTHER. DATE: 11/09/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Pankaj Sharma, for Petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Magisterial Court inferred that respondent No.2 does not have sufficient means to provide maintenance, whereas, in revision, learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 09.08.2007, has reached the finding to the effect that respondent No.2 has 23 bighas of agriculture land and a residential house, still then, no maintenance is provided to wife – petitioner No.1. Also submitted that for petitioner No.2 also, only Rs.500/- are directed, so the orders are wholly erroneous one defeating the very purpose of Section 125, Cr.P.C. For petitioner, it is also contended that it is duty of the respondent No.2 to provide maintenance to wife and children and when admittedly wife – petitioner No.1 is not residing with respondent No.2 – then maintenance is to be ordered. Considered arguments and perused orders. Learned Magistrate, while deciding various issues, arrived at the conclusion that (1) wife – petitioner No.1 is able to maintain herself. (2) one of the applicants Puran Ram is adult, able to maintain himself. (3) Jaipal, petitioner No.2, has no means for maintenance. (4) All the petitioners living separately, without any reason. (5) Respondent No.2 does not have means to provide for maintenance. 2 Learned Sessions Judge, as per revisional order dated 09.08.2007, seems to have arrived at conclusion that (1) wife – petitioner No.1 is on her own , unable to live with respondent No.2 (2) competent and have means enough to maintain herself. (3) Puran Ram and Jaipal each entitled to maintenance of Rs.500/- w.e.f. the date of revision. Also is order for payment only w.e.f. the date of revisional order. Entire evidence and all the facts are stated and analyzed by the learned Magistrate. Similarly, though some different conclusion, the revisional Court also have well discussed and analyzed the factual aspect. Regarding petitioner No.1, similar are conclusions. As for contention that maintenance is allowed only from the date of revisional order, little reason for this appears from order dated 09.08.2007. As mentioned in the order of learned Magistrate, averments are to the effect that sons are living with their mother. Further is mentioned in the order of the learned trial Court that respondent No.2 be released from judicial custody. Considered above facts, it cannot be outrightly said that on the face of it, Rs.500/- are too low as to require interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Further, evaluation of alleged facts or evidence is not needed, particularly when application for maintenance may be pending before the trial Court, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. scd (C. M. TOTLA), J.