1 S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.655/2004 Smt. Saroj vs Om Prakash DATE OF ORDER : -30.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. None present. <><><> Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 4th Oct., 2007, 5th Oct., 2007, 26th Oct., 2007 and today also nobody appeared. It appears that the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for herself and for her daughter was only partly allowed so far as claim of maintenance for petitioner's daughter is concerned by the order of the trail court dated 5.2.2002 and petitioner's claim for maintenance was rejected. Against the order dated 5.2.2002, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The revision petition was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 3rd July, 2004, hence, this petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking award of maintenance for herself from the non-petitioner. It appears from the facts mentioned in the 2 impugned orders that petitioner admittedly was residing in her mother's house. The petitioner's father also died living behind irrigated agriculture land. The petitioner has no brother and she has only sister and mother. The contention of the non- petitioner was that his one brother and father became insane and he also suffered insanity and for treatment of his insanity he was admitted in the mental hospital at Jaipur. The petitioner in another proceeding in her statement, copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.D/1 stated that non- petitioner's father and brother are insane, however, she denied giving the said statement. In view of the above facts if the two courts below after considering the facts of the case and evidence on record reached to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance from the non-petitioner who is a teacher grade-III only and when petitioner has irrigated agricultural land and earning from said land, I do not find any case for calling any interference by this Court by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-