R.C.Mishra, J.

( 1. ) This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order-dated 22.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon in Criminal Revision No.39/2009 affirming the maintenance order passed by Shri Thakur Das, JMFC, Lakhnadon, on 23.12.2008 in MJC No.185/05. As an obvious consequence, the petitioner is liable to pay a total amount of Rs.2500/- per month (Rs. 1500/- for respondent no.1 and Rs. 1000/- for respondent no.2) as maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code.

( 2. ) Background facts may be summed up as under - Marriage of respondent no.1 was solemnized with the petitioner on 09.03.1999. In the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter viz. respondent no.2, who, at the time of filing of application for grant of maintenance, was aged about 4 years. However, the marital relationship could not remain smooth and cordial. Ultimately, on 17.03.2004, the respondent no.1 along with other respondent returned to her parental home at Chhapara. Since then, she has been residing there only. On 09.06.2004, upon a written complaint made the respondent no.1, a case under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3 read with S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered against the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner also filed a petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Jabalpur for restitution of conjugal rights, contending that the respondent no. 1 was refusing to discharge her matrimonial obligations without any reasonable excuse. In the corresponding case, registered as Civil Suit No.282-A/2005, an ex-parte decree was passed on 14.09.2006. Later on, upon an application moved by the respondent no.1 under Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC, the decree was set aside vide order-dated 13.03.2008 passed in MJC No.2/2007.

( 3. ) Assailing legality and propriety of the maintenance order, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that while upholding it, learned ASJ completely overlooked the following material aspects of the matter - (i) In the wake of conduct of the respondent no. 1 to live separately without any sufficient cause, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and was also able to obtain an ex-parte decree for the purpose. (ii) His acquittal in the criminal case re-affirmed his plea that he had neither treated the respondent no. 1 with cruelty nor harassed her due to non-satisfaction of any demand for dowry.

( 4. ) To fortify the contentions, reliance has been placed on the under-mentioned precedents -

(i) Deb Narayan Haider v. Smt. Anushree Haider AIR 2003 SC 3174. (ii) Smt. Renu v. Hiralal 2002 CrLJ 2599 (iii) Sunitabai v. Lalu 2004 (4) MPLJ 532 (iv) Balakram v. Smt. Durgabai 2007 (I) MPWN 10 In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted the order of maintenance is well-merited in the light of the evidence on record.

( 5. ) At the outset, it may be observed that custody of the respondent no.2 is immaterial for determining the liability of her father, the petitioner here, to maintain her.

( 6. ) Coming to the question as to accountability of the petitioner as against the respondent no. 1-wife, the decision in Deb Narayan Haiders case (supra) is also of no avail to him in the factual scenario as highlighted above, as in that case, the couple had enjoyed normal marital relationship for a considerable period of 12 years.

( 7. ) In Renus case (above), the revisional order setting aside an interim maintenance order was affirmed inter alia on the ground that an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights has already been passed against wife and there was no allegation that it was obtained by fraud. However, as pointed out already, in the present case, the decree had already been annulled. The order passed in Renus case also contained reference to the decision of this Court in Babula