1 (1)S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.970/2006 ( Smt. Sita Bai v. Kalu Ram ) (2)S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.998/2006 ( Kalu Ram v. Smt. Sita Bai ) Date of Order :: 7th January, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Pawan Dewal, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, for the respondent. (In SBCr.Revision Petition No.970/06) Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Dewal, for the respondent. (In SBCr.Misc.Petition No.998/06) .... SBCr.Misc.Petition No.998/06 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred to challenge then order dated 7.3.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera rejecting the revision petition preferred to assail validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 25.4.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badi Sadri accepting an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sita Bai submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Additional Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate, Badi Sadri claiming maintenance being deserted by her husband, the present petitioner. Learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 25.4.2005 accepted the application and allowed maintenance in a tune of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of submission of the application i.e. 16.3.2002. The petitioner assailed validity of the same by way of filing a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera and that came to be rejected by order impugned dated 7.3.2006 with a little modification relating to date of payment of maintenance to Smt. Sita Bai. Learned Sessions Judge while affirming the order of maintenance held that no reason was given for accepting the application from the date of filing the same, thus, allowed maintenance from the date of order. SBCr.Revision Petition No.970/06 under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Smt. Sita Bai to assail modification made by learned Additional Sessions Judge. While assailing validity of the order dated 7.3.2006, the contention of counsel for the petitioner husband Shri Kalu Ram is that the courts below failed to appreciate that Smt. Sita Bai was living separately at her own and, therefore, she was not entitled for any maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out from the statements of Smt. 3 Sita herself that she was not at all deserted by the petitioner but was living independently at her own. I have examined the record of the case and also the order impugned. It is not in dispute that Smt. Sita Bai is wife of petitioner Kalu Ram and the courts below after considering the entire evidence on record reached at a specific conclusion that Smt. Sita Bai was deserted by the petitioner. Such finding of fact do not warrant any interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The findings given by the courts below cannot be said perverse or based on no foundation. The petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, deserves to be rejected. The revision petition preferred by Smt. Sita Bai relate to change of the date of payment of maintenance awarded. From perusal of the order passed by learned Magistrate, it is apparent that no reason is given to allow maintenance from the date of filing the application. On the other hand, learned Additional Sessions Judge considered every aspect of the matter and on basis of adequate reasons declared Smt. Sita Bai entitled for getting maintenance from the date of the order. Such an order does not warrant any interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 4 Consequently, both these petitions stand dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.