1 S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.226/2005 Jugal Kishore vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 6.2.2007 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SARRAF Shri PN Mohanani, for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor. None present for the respondent no.2. <><><> This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.1.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar whereby the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman City dated 8.5.2003 was set aside and the case was remanded to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman City for disposal after recording the evidence of the parties again. The facts in brief are that the respondent no.2 filed an application on 27.9.1996 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman City with the averments that she married the petitioner on 9.3.1989 and out of this wedlock, she gave birth to two children, namely, Sandeep and Pooja. It was further averred that she was subjected to continuous harassment by the petitioner and his family members 2 and ultimately she was driven out of the house of the petitioner. She claimed compensation for herself and for her two children, namely, Sandeep and Pooja. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of both the sides awarded maintenance to Sandeep and Pooja each to the tune of Rs.500/- per month and dismissed the application with respect to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 filed a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar, who set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case to the Magistrate for disposal after recording the evidence of the parties again. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service. The respondent no.2 claimed maintenance for herself and for her two children. No prayer was made in the application for maintenance of her third child. The inquiry by the court is restricted to the case pleaded by the parties. It is not permissible to the court to make out a case not pleaded by the parties. Since both the parties were given full opportunity to lead evidence there was no ground to order remand of the case for recording the evidence of the parties again. In this view of 3 the matter, the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar cannot be sustained. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.1.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar is set aside and the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman City dated 8.5.2003 is maintained. (G.S. SARRAF), J. cpgoyal/-