JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This revision is directed against order dated 10.8.1982 recorded by Sri R.R. Jatav, learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad who allowed Criminal Revision No. 66 of 1982 and reversed the order of Magistrate in Case No. 802 of 1981 dated 8.4.1982 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Admittedly, Smt. Aisha Khatoon was legally wedded wife of revisionist Rafiq, Ahmad. The marriage was performed according to Mohammadan Law on 11.3.1981 at Moradabad although, the revisionist is resident of Tundla District Agra. 3. She lived with her husband for one month. During this time, she was ill-created by the husband. She returned to Moradabad and stayed there for about four months. Thereafter, she was sent back to the house of her husband in the month of July, 1981. The husband persisted in cruelty and eventually divorced her on 28.8.1981 in presence of her brother Iqram Wahi (P.W. 2) who had gone to fetch her. 4. She returned to Moradabad and filed this application for maintenance on 27.8.1982. Maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Income of the husband was alleged at Rs. 765/- per month. 5. Rafiq Ahmad denied the aforesaid allegations. He denied that he ever ill-treated or divorced her. He maintained that his father-in-law detained her at his house against her will with intention to misappropriate the ornaments worth Rs. 25,000/- which the revisionist (Opposite Party) had taken with her at the time of departure in August, 1981. He further alleged that his monthly salary was Rs. 600/- and he had to maintain his old mother, brother and sisters and so the maintenance claimed was excessive. 6. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in the Court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate found that the lady herself had left the place of her husband without any reasonable cause or excuse and so she was disentitled to any maintenance. 7. Learned revisional Court reversed those finding holding that the lady was ill-treated by the husband and had been divorced. She has been turned out of the house by the husband and nothing was paid to her thereafter and thus maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from the date of application of maintenance vide impugned order dated 10.8.1982. 8. She has been turned out of the house by the husband and nothing was paid to her thereafter and thus maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from the date of application of maintenance vide impugned order dated 10.8.1982. 8. Pending this revision, opposite party Smt. Aisha Khatoon died on 11.9.1984 and an application was filed by her legatees claiming under a will executed in their favour on 27.11.1983 that they should be impleaded as opposite parties in place of Smt. Aisha Khatoon to contest the revision. This application dated 3.12.1984 is also being disposed of by this order. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. The first point pressed before me in this revision on behalf of applicants was that this revision has not abated after the death of Smt. Aisha Khatoon who alone had a statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 2 of 1974) irrespective of her Personal Law. This revision had been admitted on 19.8.1982 and consequently could not abate. A mere look at Section 394 Cr. P.C. shall go to disclose that there is a provision for abatement of appeals other than appeal from a sentence of fine. There is no provision for abatement of Criminal revisions. Section 403 of Code of Criminal Procedure shows that no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before a revisional Court although a discretion vested in the revisional Court to hear any party either personally or by pleader. Once the revision has been admitted, there is no question of its abatement and it is open to this Court to scrutinise the legality, propriety and the correctness of the impugned order on as to fosten the liability on the revisionist for payment of maintenance from the date of application upto the date of the death of Smt. Aisha Khatoon on 11.8.1984. This revision can be disposed of on merits and it is not open to the heirs Smt. Aisha Khatoon to claim any right to be heard. 11. Learned Advocate for revisionist urged that such application for substitution is not maintainable in revision. The will under Moham madan Law is hedged with certain limitations. This revision can be disposed of on merits and it is not open to the heirs Smt. Aisha Khatoon to claim any right to be heard. 11. Learned Advocate for revisionist urged that such application for substitution is not maintainable in revision. The will under Moham madan Law is hedged with certain limitations. A Mohammadan has limited testamentary power of disposal of property which could not exceed ?rd of the surplus of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts. There is no consent of other heirs of Smt. Aisha Khatoon that the legatees should be permitted to be substituted in place of Smt. Aisha Khatoon nor other heirs consented to the will after the death of testator. 12. A boque in future was void. A contingent interest could not be bequesthed. The right of maintenance of Smt. Aisha Khatoon from the date of execution of the bill was under the challenge in this revision and so such contingent bequest was impermissible under the Mohammadan Law. 13. I am not sitting on execution side in the revision. Enforcement of an order of maintenance is done under Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is for the Magistrate concerned enforcing such orders to enter into such controversy and so all these questions are left upon. The present application for impleadment is rejected as not maintainable. 14. Coming to the merits of the revision, it was argued on behalf of revisionist that the revisionist was a loving husband; he had no other wife at his wife; the stay of the wife at the house of her husband was very short. The marriage was performed on 11.3.1981. Had the lady been ill-treated, she could not have written letters dated 16.4.1981, 22.4.1981, 25.4.1981 and 8.7.1981 to her husband which were indicative of smooth course of love running in the conjugal life. 15. It appears that learned Sessions Judge went by the statement of Smt. Aisha Khatoon (P.W. 1) who alleged to be the victim of cruelty. She stated that her husband kept her at his house for two or three days properly. Thereafter, he and his parents etc. began to find fault with her on the ground that she did not bring sufficient dowry. She was beaten once or twice by her husband and subjected to mental torture. She stated that her husband kept her at his house for two or three days properly. Thereafter, he and his parents etc. began to find fault with her on the ground that she did not bring sufficient dowry. She was beaten once or twice by her husband and subjected to mental torture. She returned back to Moradabad; her husband told her not to return to his house until she was fetched from Moradabad. She was obliged to stay for four months at the house of her parents. She and her father made efforts to patch-up the differences and she was again sent to Tundla. When her brother lqram Nabi had gone to fetch her on 23.8.1981. They accused her of being a foolish lady. Her husband also turned her out of the house by uttering `divorce, divorce, divorce'. He further told that she was only being turned out of the house although she deserved to be burnt. She did not take anything with her from the house of her husband when she accompanied her brother. Her statement was supported by the statement of lqram Nabi (P.W. 2) her brother. She also explained aforesaid letters in her statement. She sent those letters in an attempt to adjust her differences with her husband. This explanation was accepted by the revisional Court. 16. The evidence of Rafiq Ahmad (P.W. 1) denying the divorce and alleging that the wife carried away ornaments worth Rs. 23,000/- from his house were disbelieved on the ground that he did not lodge any report in this connection nor filed any suit to recover this huge amount. It was further found in his cross examination that he had no money to purchase the ornaments worth Rs. 23,000/-. When he had to support his parents and his brother Taufiq who was a student. Igbal Hussain (P.W. 2) brother of revisionist simply, testified that the lady lived at their house comfortable. The letter sent by her father on 17.8.1981 and other letters proved by him are Exts. A-7 to A-10 learned revisional Court also scrutinised the statement of Chandra Prakash Gupta (P.W. 3) who simply testified that Rafiq was a gentleman. Similar statement was made by Taslim Ahmad (P W 4). 17. Learned revisional Court also observed that the suggestion that Smt. Aisha Khatoon had developed illicit connection with another man was an afterthought. A-7 to A-10 learned revisional Court also scrutinised the statement of Chandra Prakash Gupta (P.W. 3) who simply testified that Rafiq was a gentleman. Similar statement was made by Taslim Ahmad (P W 4). 17. Learned revisional Court also observed that the suggestion that Smt. Aisha Khatoon had developed illicit connection with another man was an afterthought. Such allegation was not made even in the written statement. The allegation of revisionist that the father of Smt. Aisha Khatoon wanted to misappropriate his ornaments was not reasonable and no credence was attached to it. I do not find that the learned revisional Court had over stapped his jurisdiction in interfering with the order recorded by learned Magistrate. It was open to the revisional Court to scrutinise the legality, propriety and correctness of the order of Magistrate. Such discretion could not be ousted by the more ipse dixit of the Magistrate. 18. As regards the order of maintenance, only a sum of Rs. 150/- per month has been awarded by learned Sessions Judge. He has found the income of the husband as more than 600/- per month. Having regard to the prevailing dearness, need of the life and the fact that the lady had no means, the amount cannot beregarded to be excessive. Even having regard to her bare needs for food, clothes and lodging etc. as have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which must operate. 19. Thus, the revision is dismissed with the observation that the revisionist is liable for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from 27.8.1981 upto 11.8.1984 only.