R. K. VIJAYVARGIYA, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 2 1. 10. 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1980 arising out of the order dated 29. 4. 1980 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaora in Misc. Criminal case 209 of 1977. ( 2 ) THE material facts are as follows:the applicant is the wife of non-applicant. The applicant submitted an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the non-applicant on the ground that she was turned out by the nonapplicant who refused and neglected to maintain her. The application was opposed by the non-applicant. The Magistrate held that the non-applicant refused and neglected to maintain the applicant and ordered the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per month as maintenance from the date of the application. The ,non-applicant submitted a revision petition against the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the application submitted by the applicant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court the wife has submitted this Revision. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I. have come to the conclusion that this revision deserves to be allowed. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the parties were married in the year 1966. In 1971 the non-applicant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the applicant which was allowed by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal preferred by the wife there was reconciliation between the parties on 22. 3. 1977. Thereafter the applicant started living with the non-applicant. ( 5 ) SOON thereafter it is alleged by the applicant that she was sent by the non-applicant on a false pretext to her parental home. On 19. 1. 1977 the applicant sent a telegram to the non-applicant requesting him to come within three days and take her with him or arrange for her maintenance. In reply Ex. p. 2 the non-applicant averred that the applicant had already obtained a divorce and she was not entitled to maintenance as per agreement. ( 6 ) THE non-applicant placed reliance upon the agreement Ex. D. 1 alleged to have been executed between the parties on 18. 7. 77. In reply Ex. p. 2 the non-applicant averred that the applicant had already obtained a divorce and she was not entitled to maintenance as per agreement. ( 6 ) THE non-applicant placed reliance upon the agreement Ex. D. 1 alleged to have been executed between the parties on 18. 7. 77. By this agreement the marriage between the parties was agreed to have been dissolved and the applicant agreed that she would have no right to claim maintenance from the non-applicant and the non-applicant will not claim the ornaments and clothes which would be deemed to be the property of the applicant. The applicant denied that she executed the document Ex. D. 1. Her case was that her signatures were obtained by the non- applicant on blank paper on the pretext that an agreement for the purchase of a plot was to be executed. ( 7 ) THE trial Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the non-applicant refused and neglected to maintain the applicant and that the document Ex. D. 1 was not executed by the applicant and she signed the blank paper as alleged by her. The trial Magistrate further held that the income of the non-applicant was Rs. 500 per month. The trial court directed the non- applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per month as maintenance to the applicant from the date of application. Now the revisional Court has observed that the reasons given by the trial Magistrate for holding that Ex. D. 1 was not executed by the applicant and that she signed a blank paper as alleged by her are weighty. However, the revisional court held that unless the document Ex. D. 1 was set aside by a competent court the criminal court had no power to hold the document as forged. Another ground taken into consideration by the revisional court in dismissing the application for maintenance of the applicant is that the grant of maintenance would adversely affect the process of reconciliation between the parties. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the revisional court was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Magistrate Having held that the trial Magistrate for weightily reasons come to the conclusion that the document. Ex. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the revisional court was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Magistrate Having held that the trial Magistrate for weightily reasons come to the conclusion that the document. Ex. D. 1 was not executed by the applicant, the revisional court has committed an error that the said document cannot be ignored unless is set aside by a competent court. The revisional court further erred in holding that the award of the maintenance allowance would hamper the process of reconciliation between the parties. There was no question of reconciliation when the non-applicant falsely alleged that the marriage between the parties was dissolved by agreement and they were living apart by mutual consent. Moreover the learned counsel for the non-applicant did not dispute the fact that the husband has filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage between the parties which is pending in the trial court. ( 9 ) IN my opinion the trial Magistrate was fully justified in holding that Ex. D. 1 was not executed by the applicant and that she signed a blank paper as alleged by her. The document Ex. D. 1 is said to have been executed on 18. 7. 1977. However, on 19. 9. 1977 the nonapplicant wrote a letter Ex. p. 4 to the applicants brother. The tenor of this letter belies the allegation of the non applicant that the marriage between the parties was dissolved on 18. 7. 1977. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence on record was reasonable and in the absence of any illegality impropriety having been committed by the trial court in recording the said finding the revisional court was not justified in interfering with the same. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicant also contended that the application of the applicant should have been dismissed on the ground that she did not allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. The contention is not well founded. In the application the applicant specially stated that she has no income and in statement also she made that averment. It is not pointed out by the nonapplicant that the applicant is possessed of any source of income. In the circumstances the trial Magistrate did not commit any error in holding that the applicant was unable to maintain herself. In the application the applicant specially stated that she has no income and in statement also she made that averment. It is not pointed out by the nonapplicant that the applicant is possessed of any source of income. In the circumstances the trial Magistrate did not commit any error in holding that the applicant was unable to maintain herself. The decision in Bilqis Bai w/o Sher Khan v. Sher Khan Ilahibax,1 relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-applicant is distinguishable on facts. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the nonapplicant also contended that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Magistrate is excessive and deserves to be suitably reduced. This contention has also no merit. The trial Court has a warded the maintenance on the basis that the income of the non-applicant is Rs. 500 per month. However, the non-applicant has admitted that he files income tax returns in respect of his concern Laxmi Barrey House; which means that the income of the non-applicant is more than Rs. 500 per month. In my opinion, it cannot be held that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Magistrate is excessive in the circumstances of the case. Thus, I am of the opinion that on the evidence on record the trial Magistrate was fully justified in holding that the non-applicant refused and neglected to maintain the applicant and in awarding a sum of Rs. 200 per month as maintenance to the applicant from the nonapplicant from the date of the application and the revisional court was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The order passed by the revisional court then fore deserves to be set aside. ( 12 ) AS a result of the discussion aforesaid, this revision is allowed. The order passed by the revisional court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. In the circumstances the parties shall hear their own costs of this revision. Revision allowed. .