H. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) LIST has been revised but none is present on behalf of the revisionist. ( 2 ) THIS revision against the order dated 18-5-89 passed in the proceedings under Section 125 cr. P. C. against the revisionist husband was admitted on the question of quantum of maintenance. It was further directed that the revisionist would meanwhile deposit the amount due at the rate of rs. 300/- per month and would continue to deposit the same also in future by 10th of every month. It was further ordered that in default of any deposit, the interim order would stand vacated. This order was passed on 16-6-89. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the impugned order dated 18-5-89 the revisionist was directed to deposit Rs. 500/- per month regarding maintenance of his wife and two minor children from the date of the application dated 23-3-87. Hence in accordance with the order dated 16-6-89 the amount due towards maintenance was since 23-3-87 and the revisionist was required to deposit the same at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month instead of Rs. 500/- per month as directed by the trial court. The opposite party No. 2 filed an objection that the compliance of the order has not been done and against that the revisionist has also filed objection stating that he has deposited the amount as directed, He also filed questionnare as Annexure No. 1 showing that he has deposited the amount from 10-7-89 to 8-12-89 at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month. Admittedly he has not deposited the amount due from 23-3-87. Thus the order dated 16-6-89 meanwhile staying the recovery of the amount due at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month has not been complied hence in default of the revisionist the same stands vacated and the lower court was free to recover the entire amount at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. ( 4 ) AS regards the amount of maintenance from the date of the order of the court below, it is clear that the revisionist is a Driver in the Roadways and his monthly income was Rs. 1500/- per month, according to the wife, while according to the revisionist it was only Rs. 1090. 90 per month. That apart, there was also evidence that he also owns a Bus from which he has income of rs. 2000/- per month. 1500/- per month, according to the wife, while according to the revisionist it was only Rs. 1090. 90 per month. That apart, there was also evidence that he also owns a Bus from which he has income of rs. 2000/- per month. However, considering the income of Rs. 1090. 90 per monthly only, the court below in view of the fact that the revisionist was neither maintaining his wife nor his two minor children awarded Rs. 300/- per month to the wife and Rs. 100/- each to the two minor children, total Rs. 500/- which amount prima-facie does not appear to be erroneous-nor suffers from any illegality. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. .