1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Manoj Kumar Vs. Smt. Rekha @ Rinku SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.52/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 8th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. J.P. Gupta for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: In this revision petition moved under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenge has been made to an order dated 21st September, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in Case No.165/2005 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case the learned Judge, Family Court has not properly appreciated the matter and evidence has been misread. It has also been contended that the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife is at excessive side. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned order. 2 The facts of the case reveals that in the year 2002 the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place and as per the averments sufficient dowry was paid but subsequently she was ill-treated and petitioner neglected the wife. In the proceedings pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, maintenance was sought by the respondent-wife and the evidence was recorded by both the sides. The learned Judge, Family Court found that the factum of marriage was fully established and by the side of the wife a case was got registered against the petitioner in relation to ill-treatment given to her. After trial, the case was resulted in conviction. The learned Judge, Family Court further found that the petitioner was having sufficient means and he is duty bound to maintain his wife, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. The argument of the learned counsel that the learned Judge, Family Court has misread the evidence and the petitioner is not having sufficient means to pay the amount as directed by the learned trial court is not liable to be accepted. The petition appears to be devoid of merit in view of the reasoned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) 3