IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SMT. CHANDRAWATI VS. RAMESH CHAND S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 47 Of 2009 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated December 11, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 2007 whereby Order dated November 27, 2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Gangapur City in Misc. Cr. Case No. 209 of 2006 was set aside and the application filed by the non- petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for stopping the maintenance in respect of petitioner was allowed. Date of Order : February 17, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, for the petitioner None present for the respondent. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Chandrawati against the order dated December 11, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 2007 whereby Order dated November 27, 2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Gangapur City in Cr. Misc. Case No. 209 of 2006 was set aside and the application filed by the non-petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for stopping the maintenance in respect of petitioner was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Ramesh Chand submitted an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Gangapur City, which was decided by the order dated November 27, 2007 and the the respondent was directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner. The respondent submitted criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City and by order dated December 11, 2008 the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated November 27, 2007 was set aside. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated December 11, 2008 the petitioner filed the present revision petition. The notice of this revision petition was served on the respondent Ramesh Chand through Incharge Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli. But inspite of service of notice the respondent has not put appearance before this Court either by himself or through his counsel. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated December 11, 2008. In my view the order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the application of the respondent under section 127 Cr.P.c. deserves to be set aside. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the respondent giving detailed reasons for rejecting the application of the respondent. In my opinion the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is just and proper. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is perfectly legal and not contrary to law. The Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in allowing the application of the respondent under section 127 Cr.P.c. The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated December 12, 2008 is set aside and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is maintained. This revision petition is allowed accordingly. As the main petition has been allowed the stay application also stands disposed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/