1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, petitioners impugn judgement and order dated 08-01-2008 rendered by learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Revision Application No. 107/2006, to the extent of refusal to grant maintenance allowance to the petitioner No. 1. They further seek modification in the order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu and urge for separate maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. for the petitioner No. 1.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner No. 1 is married wife of the respondent and petitioner No. 2 is the minor son born out of their wedlock. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent was performed in the year 1998 in accordance with the tenets and customs of Mahomedan law. Undisputedly, the marital relation still exists. The petitioners filed proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Misc. Cri.Application No. 68/2003) for grant of separate maintenance allowance.

4. The case of the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate was that after about few months of the initial consortium, the respondent subjected the petitioner No. 1 to physical and mental cruelty. He used to demand cash amount and luxury items from her paternal relatives through her. He continued to ill-treat her even after the birth of the petitioner No. 2. Somewhere in the year 2000, he beat her and drove her out of the house alongwith the minor son. They took shelter in the paternal house of the petitioner No. 1. He is employed in a construction company at Aurangabad. He earns monthly salary of Rs. 5000/-. He also owns certain agricultural land at village Kumbhar Pimpalgaon, Taluka Ambad. His agricultural income is around Rs. one (1) lac per year. He owns a house property at village Ghansawangi and earns rental of Rs. 500/- p.m. They are unable to maintain themselves. So, they sought separate maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m., each.

5. By filing his written statement (Exh-22), the respondent resisted the application of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. He alleged that the petitioner No. 1 left his house without his prior permission and on her own accord. He further alleged that she was never interested in cohabitation with him. He alleged that she insisted him to reside at Sailu near her parental village. He contended that when he expressed inability to leave the house wherein his parents are residing, she left his company. He attempted to fetch her back. She did refuse to join his company. He filed a representation before the Women’s Grievances Redressal Forum (Cell), Parbhani on 07-03-2000. The petitioner No. 1 did not resume the consortium though she was directed by the Women’s Grievances Redressal Forum (Cell). He sent a notice to her on 12-07-2001, yet, she did not turn up. He ultimately filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Aurangabad. He alleged that he is unemployed and has no sufficient source of income. He disputed the quantum of allowance claimed by the petitioners.

6. The parties went to trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate and adduced certain evidence in support of the rival contentions. On merits, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the petitioner No. 1 was entitled to claim Rs. 500/- p.m. and the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs. 400/- p.m. by way of separate maintenance allowance from the respondents. The application was, therefore, granted. The revisional Court held that the petitioner had left company of the respondent on her own accord. The revisional Court came to conclusion that she was at fault in as much as she did not give favourable response to the attempts of the respondent for the reunion. The learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner No. 1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong. Conseq