1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2004 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No. 6/04, applicant/husband has preferred this revision.

2. By the impugned order revision filed by the non-applicant before Sessions Court, Raisen against the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by JMFC Raisen in Criminal MJC No. 42/02 dismissing her application under section 125 of CrPC, has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance allowance under section 125 of CrPC to the non-applicant.

3. Non-applicant filed an application under section 125 of CrPC against the applicant before the Court of JMFC Raisen on 15.10.1999 claiming maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the applicant. According to non-applicant, she was married to the applicant three years back and soon after the marriage applicant used to demand dowry from the father of his wife and insisted for giving a motorcycle and an amount of Rs. 70,000/- for purchasing a house, on failure whereof' applicant began to harass the non-applicant. On 2.9.1998, applicant left the non-applicant at her father's house at village 'Semra' and did not call her back. On 28.4.1999 the applicant performed a second marriage with a woman named Vaijanti Bai, though the non-applicant was ready' to live with applicant. Non-applicant had no means to maintain herself, while the applicant having sufficient means and income had neglected to maintain her. Applicant, therefore, being unable to maintain herself filed an application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of CrPC before JMFC Raisen.

4. The application for grant of maintenance was opposed by the applicant. In the written reply filed by him, though it was not disputed that non-applicant was married to him, it was alleged that the non-applicant did not want to live with the applicant and her father was asking for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for sending her to the applicant, which constrained him to move for issue of search warrant by the SDM Vidisha for calling her back. Non-applicant on coming back to the applicant after issue of search warrant, again left her matrimonial home and refused to live with the applicant. Consequently, the applicant had to file suit for divorce against the non-applicant and after decree of divorce, applicant had performed a second marriage. According to applicant, non-applicant was herself earning Rs. 1,000/- per month by doing sewing work, while the applicant had no sufficient means and also had a family to maintain. The application for maintenance was filed by the non-applicant with a view to harass the applicant, which was liable to be dismissed.

5. The JMFC Raisen, after recording and considering the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the application filed by the non-applicant under section 125 of CRPC vide order dated 7.3.2002 mainly on the ground that the non-applicant was living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, which had led to the decree of divorce, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.3.2002 passed by JMFC Raisen, non-applicant preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 20.1.2004 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge Raisen in Criminal Revision No. 6/04 directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- as maintenance amount to the non-applicant from the date of order passed by JMFC Raisen in MJC No. 42/02, which has led to this revision by the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the lower revisional Court gravely erred in law and facts in allowing the revision and granting maintenance to the non-applicant without assessing the evidence on record in proper perspective. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the lower revisional Court failed to appreciate that non-applicant was not willing to live with the applicant and had reso