S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 7-3-1983, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 1982. ( 2 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 Shahnaj Bi is the divorced wife of petitioner Ismael Beg. Shahnaj Bi submitted an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Codet), claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. Ismael Beg resisted this application inter alia on the ground that his average monthly income is only Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/-, which is insufficient even to maintain himself. ( 3 ) BEFORE the trial Magistrate, it was not disputed that there was a divorce between Shahnaj Bi and Ismael Beg on 25-7-1979. He found that Shahnaj Bi took divorce without any fault on the part of Ismael Beg and is living separately and so she was not entitled to any maintenance. According to him Ismael Beg not neglected in maintaining her. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by that order Shahnaj Bi filed a revision, The Additional Sessions Judge has found that Ismael Beg did not pay mehar amount although there bas been a divorce. He also found that Ismael Beg has remarried another woman. On a consideration of the material on record, he found Ismial Beg Vs. Shahnaj Bi ( 5 ) ISMAEL Beg in his evidence admitted that about 31/2 year,; before his evidence he has remarried. There is nothing to show that Shahnaj Bi after divorce has remarried. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Shahnaj Bi had divorced him because he could not provide her with clothings etc to her taste and wants. What, therefore, urged is that in these circumstances, Shahnaj Bi was not entitled to any maintenance amount. In the alternative he also urged that in view of the income of Ismael Beg, he would not in a position to pay any maintenance amount to Shahnaj Bi. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, neither of these two contentions, deserves to be accepted. There is no dispute on the question that there has been a divorce between the parties. I find no such ground which could disentitle Shahnaj Bi to maintenance. So for as the quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, that also does not deserve any interference. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, neither of these two contentions, deserves to be accepted. There is no dispute on the question that there has been a divorce between the parties. I find no such ground which could disentitle Shahnaj Bi to maintenance. So for as the quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, that also does not deserve any interference. Ismael Beg, in his evidence admitted that he runs a then and even prepares tazias. According to him his income is Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/- per month. Inayat Beg (N. A. 4) is the father of Ismael Beg. His version is that he does not earn anything and is being maintained by his son. If Ismael Beg was so much hard pressed in even maintaining himself, there would normally be no reason for a second marriage. The Court below has assessed the monthly income of Ismael Beg to be about Rs, 300/ -. A person who runs a thela can in the present days easily earn that amount. The maintenance amount of Rs. 75/- that has been awarded to Shahnaj Bi cannot in the circumstances be said to be excessive. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .