M.D. Shah, J.—Rule in both these applications. In Criminal Revision Application No. 364 of 2004, learned Advocate Ms. Amee Yagnik waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 while Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State while in Criminal Revision Application No. 392 of 2004, learned Advocate Mr. Viren C. Dave waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1 while learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

1.1 With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on both sides, these matters are taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. These two cross applications, namely, Criminal Revision Application No. 364 of 2004 is preferred by the applicant-husband while Criminal Revision Application No. 392 of 2004 is preferred by the applicant-wife against the same judgment and order dated 5th March 2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2205 of 2001 whereby the learned Judge awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the -wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the minor son.

3. Since both these applications arise from the same judgment, t