S. S. SBARMA J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against an order dated 4-12-1982, passed by Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 135/82. ( 2 ) NON-APPLICANT. No. 1 Dukhiyabai is the mother of non-applicant No. 2 Rambagas who is minor. It is a common ground that Dukhiyabai was married to Somnath, who is the present applicant. Dukhiyabai submitted an application under Section 185 of the Code, claiming the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for herself and Rs. 100/- for the minor son. The trial Magistrate allowed the application and awarded Rs. 300/- per month for the wife and Rs. 100/- per month for the minor son, as maintenance. Aggrieved by the order Somnath, the husband filed a revision which has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, by the impugned order. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code by Somnath. ( 3 ) THE case of wife Dukhiyabai was that her husband Somnath about four years back after harassing and beating turned her out. Even earlier this is how Somnath had behaved with her but because of her parents, she had come back. She also alleged that Somnath about four years back had one Urmila as his keep and subsequently he turned her out. Thereafter he had another keep with him and after few months she also was turned away. Thereafter since last two years he has kept one Ramotinbai as his wife, who is living with him. The husband Somnath in his reply alleged that Dukhiyabai was of loose character and she left his house in his absence along with the minor son Rambagas. When he went to her parents house to bring her back, she had refused to come. He alleged that because of her bad character, she always used to quarrel with him. He denied the allegation with regard to his having kept any woman as wife or otherwise. He thus resisted the claim of Dukhiyabai. The trial Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence of the witnesses as were examined, found that Somnath after beating Dukhiyabai urged her out and had been keeping other woman as keeps. In this connection, the proceedings in the PANCHAYAT were also taken into account. He thus resisted the claim of Dukhiyabai. The trial Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence of the witnesses as were examined, found that Somnath after beating Dukhiyabai urged her out and had been keeping other woman as keeps. In this connection, the proceedings in the PANCHAYAT were also taken into account. The evidence of the witnesses as were examined on behalf of Dukhiyabai were found to be trustworthy. The trial Magistrate on a consideration of the monthly income of Somnath and the income from the agricultural land had fixed the amount of maintenance for the wife and the minor son. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge has upheld these findings. According to him, there is evidence in support of these findings and they do not deserve to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ( 5 ) IN spite of notice, neither the N. As. nor any one on their behalf appeared. S. P. C. had also been issued to the N. As. for the date of hearing. But at that time also none had appeared. Accordingly counsel for the applicant was heard. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that from the evidence it is not made out that Dukhiyabai had been turned out by Somnath. According to him she had left her husbands house of her free will and did not return back. In the reply, Somnath himself has admitted that Dukhiyabai bad often been going away to her parents house without his permission. This according to him was because she was a bad charactered woman. However, in the evidence, Somnath stated that since she used to frequently go away from the house, he has said that her character is not good. This in my opinion is fallacious. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that there is evidence in support of the finding that Dukhiyabai was turned out by Somnath after beating her and Somnath had been keeping different women as keeps. These are findings of fact and in the circumstances no interference is called for in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code. ( 7 ) THE other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the amount of maintenance that has been awarded is excessive. He also urged that Somnath was willing to keep the minor son with him. ( 7 ) THE other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the amount of maintenance that has been awarded is excessive. He also urged that Somnath was willing to keep the minor son with him. He also stated that the other two children are also with Somnath. It is admitted that Somnath was an employee in Bhilai Steel Plant. In the application filed by Dukhiyabai, applicants monthly salary was shown to be Rs. 700/ -. In the reply, Somnath stated that after deductions, be gets only Rs 350/ -. By order dated 13. 8. 1982 the trial Magistrate had directed Somnath to bring one of his pay slips. In his cross-examination he admitted that the month, year, personal Dumber. Token Dumber etc. and particulars are torn. He admitted that upper portion of this pay slip has been torn by him because it was unnecessary. He also admitted that he remains absent for four to six days in a month. He gave evasive answers to the question as to what is his monthly salary. This was a matter of his personal knowledge and in the circumstances an adverse inference had rightly been drawn against him. It also was admitted that his father was holding land who had died about 15 to 20 years back. He evaded answer to the question as to the area of that land. The father had died about 15 to 20 years back as has been admitted by him. He denied that he had been cultivating that land. These again were evasive answers. Evidence had been led by Dukhiyabai about the possible monthly income from the agricultural lands. Somnath had also been questioned about it taking into account the salary income and the income from agriculture, the trial Court had fixed the amount of monthly maintenance. This again is a question of fact and the finding in that behalf has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) THE contention that they have been willing to keep the minor son is of no avail in the present proceedings. Somnath is free to take such steps as he may deem proper for the Custody of the minor child in accordance with law. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Somnath is free to take such steps as he may deem proper for the Custody of the minor child in accordance with law. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is dismissed. If Somnath has deposited any amount in pursuance of the order dated 12. 10. 1983, the same may be paid over to the present non-applicants. Petition dismissed. .