1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 733/2006 (Mohd. Sadik Vs. Noorsain) Date of Order : 25/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Kailash Khatri, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Gill for the non-petitioner. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.6.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the trial court granted monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of non-petitioner @ Rs.2000/-. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and record of the trial court. 2 It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the non-petitioner is his legally wedded wife with whom he contracted Nikah about six years before filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the non-petitioner against the petitioner. The application was filed on 28.6.2004. The non- petitioner claimed the maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month on the ground that she contracted Nikah with the petitioner according to Muslim Law and the petitioner having sufficient means failed to maintain and neglected her as also the petitioner contracted Nikah with some other lady and therefore, the non- petitioner has been turned out of her matrimonial home. A reply to the petitioner seeking monthly allowance of maintenance has been filed admitting therein that the petitioner contracted Nikha with the non-petitioner according to Muslim Law. However, it has been stated that the petitioner is prepared to keep the non- petitioner but the parents of the non-petitioner took her and thereafter the non-petitioner never returned to matrimonial home. Before the trial court, the non-petitioner herself appeared as AW-1 and produced AW-2 Sarwar Khan and AW-3 Kasam Ali Haji. The petitioner himself appeared as NAW-1 and produced NAW-2 Manzoor Khan his father. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence came 3 to the conclusion that the petitioner contracted Nikah with the non-petitioner and as such non-petitioner is legally wedded wife of the petitioner as also concluded on the admission of the petitioner and his father that the petitioner contracted Nikah with some other lady from which there are two issues and therefore, held that the non-petitioner has a reasonable cause for not living with the petitioner and entitled for the maintenance. So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, it has been established from the evidence that the petitioner's father is having 25 bighas of land out of which 10 bighas are irrigated land and the financial condition of the petitioner is good and he has reasonable source of income and keeping in view the income of the petitioner, granted monthly allowance of maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- from the date of the order. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that normally the maintenance ought to have been from the date of application. Since the trial court has granted the maintenance from the date of order and that order has not been challenged by the non-petitioner, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. On careful scrutiny of the statements of witnesses 4 and the fact that it has been admitted by the petitioner that he contracted Nikah with some other lady, in my view the trial court was justified in granting monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the non-petitioner. The order impugned does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp