IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT ASHOK KUMAR VS. SMT. KAMLESH S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 1173 Of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated June 17, 2008 of Judge Family Court Ajmer whereby the application of the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Was allowed. Date of Order : December 15, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Mohd. Akbar Khan for the petitioner Mr. M.F. Beg, for non-petitioner BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ashok Kumar, challenging the order dated June 17, 2008 of the Judge, Family Court Ajmer whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioner Kamlesh was allowed and she was granted maintenance @ Rs. 1000 per month from the date of order i.e. June 17, 2008 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the non- petitioner filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage between the petitioner and non-petitioner was performed on Feb.18, 1999. It has been stated that on account of cruel behaviour of her husband and on account of the fact that he demanded Rs. 1,00,000 towards dowry, it hos not been possible for her to reside with him. On March 15, 2007 the petitioner got married with one Kamlesh and she was shunted from the house on March 31, 2007. In these circumstances it was prayed that she be allowed maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1500/- per month. The petitioner filed reply to the application and admitted marriage with the non-petitioner but denied the demand of Rs. 1,00,000 from the non-petitioner. Cruel behaviour with the non-petitioner was also denied. The non-petitioner is leading a free life and therefore she is residing with her parents and in this manner the non- petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner got examined three witnesses and exhibited documents. The non-petitioner so as to substantiate its case examined 3 witnesses. The Judge Family Court Ajmer after hearing both the parties allowed the application vide order dated June 17, 2008. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner against this order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that while passing the impugned order the Judge Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material and evidence obtaining on record. 4. The learned counsel for the non- petitioner opposed the arguments of the petitioner and submitted that the order passed by the Judge Family Court is just and proper and there is no illegality in it. The Judge Family Court considered the material available on record. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Judge Family Court. The Judge Family Court allowed the application for maintenance and granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1000 per month from the date of passing of the order. The Judge Family Court has given reasons for allowing the application. In the reasoned order the Court found that the petitioner without any reason left her wife and he is earning more than Rs. 3,000/- per month. The witnesses produced by the petitioner also accepted that the non-petitioner resided with the petitioner for one year and thereafter she is residing with her parents. The order passed by the Judge Family Court is perfectly legal and not contrary to law. The Judge Family Court has not committed any illegality in passing the same. Thus the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of merit stands rejected. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/