1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 661/2005 (Sohan Lal V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 11/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. M.K.Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. Mr. Manjul Srimali for the non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No.94/2003, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.1.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the orders passed by the courts below as also the record 2 of the trial court. It has not been disputed that non-petitioner No.2 Smt. Ganga Devi is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The non-petitioner No.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly allowance of maintenance against the petitioner before the trial court. Before the trial court, the non- petitioner No.2 herself appeared as AW-1 and made statement that she married to the petitioner 14 years ago, out of the wedlock there had been four issues, one could not survive and three are surviving. The petitioner has been carrying on the business at Longling village of Nagaland. She went to Nagaland and wanted to have stay with the petitioner, but she was not properly maintained by the petitioner at Nagaland and therefore, came over to her parents' house. She has also stated that the petitioner is having income of Rs.2500-3000 per month, therefore, she claimed maintenance @ Rs. 1200/- per month. The petitioner himself appeared as NAW-1 and did not dispute the fact that the non-petitioner No.2 is his legally wedded wife. From the evidence produced by the parties before the trial court, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner having sufficient means failed to maintain and neglected the non- petitioner No.2 and thus granted monthly allowance of maintenance @ Rs.500 vide order dated 29.1.2003, that order came to the challenged by the petitioner before the revisional 3 court. The revisional court by a well reasoned and elaborate order, keeping in view every piece of material available on record, dismissed the revision petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below fell in error in granting monthly allowance of maintenance from the date of application. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. Thus, in my view, since the courts below have concurrently found the case against the petitioner and granted maintenance from the date of application, no case for interference in the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The criminal misc. petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp