1. - These revision petitions have been preferred by the present petitioner Shiv Raj Singh , s/o Jasvinder Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, r/o 11 G Harnia, Police Station Chunawad, District Sriganganagar, against the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009 ,whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the present respondents and set aside the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pilibanga in criminal case No.13/2007 and 89/2007, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the present respondents under section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the present petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the present respondent Balvinder Kaur and Rs. 1500/- per month, to present respondent Sukhmal, from the date of application.

2. Hereinafter Shivraj Singh shall be termed as petitioner and Balvinder Kaur and Sukhpal shall be termed as respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petitions are that the present respondents filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner stating that the petitioner is a well to do man and he is a Compounder , he is also having 13 bighas of agricultural land and his monthly income is Rs. 8,000/- as such the respondents may be awarded Rs. 2000/- each , as maintenance allowance. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner, in reply to which he averred that the respondent Sukhmal is not his daughter and the daughter who was born to him and Balvinder Kaur, is residing with him, and he is taking care of her. It was further stated that a case under section 307 IPC is pending against Balvinder Kaur. In support of the application statement of AW/1 Balvinder Kaur and AW/2 Sukhdeo Singh were recorded and in respect of petitioner the statement of NAW/1 Shivraj Singh and NAW/2 Jasvinder Singh were recorded. After conclusion of the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pilibangha by his order dated 01.04.2009, rejected the application filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2009 the respondents filed criminal revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, vide his order dated 07.01.2010 allowed the revisions and ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to respondent Balvinder Kaur and Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent Sukhmal , from the date of filing of application.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 07.01.2010 suffers from illegality, impropriety and perversity because the learned Sessions Judge in Cri.revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009, instead of remanding the case back to the trial court for determining the amount of maintenance, he himself appreciated the evidence and awarded the maintenance to Balvinder Kaur as well as her two year old daughter Sukhmal, whereas the revisional court could not have passed such order . Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount so awarded, is on higher side, and is not based upon the evidence produced by both the parties. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 07.01.2010, may be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per the provisions of section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court has the same jurisdiction as that of the trial court and, therefore, it was not necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to remand the case back to the trial court for awarding the amount of maintenance.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the following judgments:

1. Anjani Kuma