1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT PRINCIPAL SEAT, JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 883/2009 S.B.Criminal Misc.Stay Application No. 1327/2009 {Smt. Raju Devi & Others Versus Hari Ram} Date of Order :: 8th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri R.S.Choudhary} Counsel for the petitioners with } Shri B.R. Chahar } BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27th August, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar in criminal revision no. 91/2006, whereby the revisional court partly allowed the revision petition of non-petitioner and reduced the amount of maintenance of children from Rs. 600/- per child to Rs. 400/- per child, which were awarded by the trial court vide order dated 22nd July, 2006. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was sufficient 2 evidence available on record about income of the non-petitioner and trial court was fully justified in awarding the total maintenance amount of Rs. 2800/- in favour of the petitioners and there was no reason for reducing the same by the revisional court, therefore, the order of the revisional court is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It appears from the order passed by the trial court that a sum of Rs. 1000/- was allowed to petitioner no. 1 Smt. Raju Devi and Rs. 600/- per child was allowed to petitioners no. 2 to 4; thus, total sum of Rs. 2800/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners. The revisional court maintained the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of wife, but reduced the same in respect of children, as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the same, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of finding of the revisional court, I do not find any abuse of the process of law in passing the 3 impugned order, so as to interfere with the same in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence the petition is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioners to move an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of compensation as and when there is any change in the circumstances. 7. In view of the dismissal of misc. petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. DK