ORDER

N.K. Gupta, J.—Vide order dated 1.10.1996, the JMFC Umariya, District Shahdol passed in MJC No.42/1996 granted the maintenance of Rs.300 each to the applicants per month. In Criminal Revision No.201/1997, the Additional Sessions Judge Umariya, District Shahdol vide order dated 23.5.1998 confirmed the maintenance of the applicant No.2 but dismissed the order of the trial Court relating to the applicant no.1 and also dismissed her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the revisionary Court, the applicants have preferred the present revision.

2. Facts of the case in short are that the marriage of the applicant No.1 took place with the respondent 6-7 years 2 Criminal Revision No.814/1998 prior to the date of application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. One girl child was also born to the applicant No.1 and her husband. On 26.8.1996, the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that the respondent ousted her alongwith her girl child from his house after beating her and he demanded some dowry from the applicant No.1 and thereafter, he assaulted her. FIR was lodged by the applicant no.1, which was registered at serial No.54/1995 and a case under Section 498A of the IPC was initiated against the respondent. The applicant no.1 has pleaded that she was unable to maintain herself and therefore, after pleading the income of respondent, she claimed a maintenance of Rs.1,500 for the applicants.

3. The respondent in his replied denied the allegations made by the applicant No.1. It was pleaded that the applicant No.1 herself left the respondent’s house and no harassment was caused by the respondent. The respondent denied about his property and income therefore, he prayed to dismiss the maintenance application.

4. After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial Court has granted a maintenance of Rs.300 each to the applicants per month. In revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya has set aside the order passed by the trial Court in relation to the applicant No.1 and also the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

5. In the present case, a notice of this revision was issued to the respondent, however after service of notice, he remained absent.

6. I have the heard learned counsel for the applicant.

7. In the present case, a maintenance of the applicant No.2 was granted by the JMFC against the respondent. Such order was confirmed by the revisionary Court but the respondent did not file any petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of revisionary Court and therefore, he has no grievance for grant of maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the applicant No.2. Hence, it would be apparent that expenditure of the applicants, income of the respondent etc. are settled facts and no discussion on such fact is required in the present case. The applicants have challenged the order of revisionary Court only on the ground that the revision was allowed and her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that she had no reason to live separately.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the revisionary Court went away from the factual position. The applicant No.1 was entitled to get the maintenance in the matter because she was neglected by her husband. The cruelty was done by the respondent upon the applicant No.1 and therefore, she was entitled to reside separately. In support of his contention, he has placed a reliance upon the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Radhamani v. Sonu Balram.1

9. In the present case, it appears that the applicant No.1 had resided with the respondent for 6-7 years and in those 6-7 years, no dispute was reported to father of the applicant No.1 and similarly, no FIR was lodged in those 6-7 years. The respondent Ram Naresh (DW1) and his witness Ram Kumar (DW2) have stated that when the applicant No.1 was residing with the respondent