J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this revision application, the petitioners have assailed the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at baroda in a Criminal Revision Application No. 156 of 1984. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised following two contentions in this petition: (I) That the impugned order refusing maintenance to the wife is perverse and illegal. (II) That alternatively, the minor daughter sheetal should be awarded enhanced amount towards her maintenance. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of this case, a resume of the material facts may be mentioned at this stage. The marriage between the parties took place on 19/04/1979. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner No. 1 herein is a wife and the petitioner no. 2 herein is the minor daughter Sheetal. The respondent No. 1 herein is the original opponent-husband. They are, therefore, hereafter addressed to as the original applicants and the original opponent-husband for the sake of convenience. ( 4 ) THE applicant-wife, initiated legal battle by filing an application for her maintenance in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C. at Baroda. She claimed maintenance for herself and for her minor daughtor Shectal contending inter alia that she was neglected by her husband and refused maintenance and she is unable to maintain herself. The opponent husband appeared and resisted it. The learned Judicial Magistrate, f. C. , Baroda was pleased to award Rs. 140. 00 per month to the wife and Rs. 60. 00 per month to the minor daughter Sheetal towards their maintenance from the date of the application in criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 1983. This order came to be passed on 22-8-1984. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the opponent-husband filed revision in the Sessions Court as aforesaid. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Baroda was pleased to allow the revision partly. The maintenance order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C. awarding maintenance to the wife was quashed and maintained the order of maintenance to the minor daughter Sheetal. This order came to be passed on 15-8-1986. The learned Additional sessions Judge in the said Criminal Revision found that there was no refusal or neglect on the part of the opponent-husband. The maintenance order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F. C. awarding maintenance to the wife was quashed and maintained the order of maintenance to the minor daughter Sheetal. This order came to be passed on 15-8-1986. The learned Additional sessions Judge in the said Criminal Revision found that there was no refusal or neglect on the part of the opponent-husband. In short, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the wife was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code for brief ). Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Baroda, the original applicants have now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity. ( 6 ) IN so far as the first point as aforesaid raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be mentioned that it is totally devoid of any merits. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Baroda that there was no desertion or cruelty as alleged by the wife and that the wife herself was guilty for voluntarily leaving the matrimonial house and the company of the husband is quite comprehensive and unimpeachable. This finding of fact has remained unassailable in the light of the facts and the evidence on record. Needless to mention that the opponent- husband instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife by filing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 162 of 1980 for the restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was though opposed by the wife was terminated against the wife. The Civil Court granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband. It has become final. No appeal is filed against that Judgment. This decree came to be passed in the District Court, Baroda on 3-9- 1981. It may also be mentioned at this stage that a decree for divorce came to be passed under section 13 (1) (b) by the District Court, Baroda in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 61/82 on 12-4- 1983 between the spouses. Thereafter, an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the code came to be filed by the wife as observed hereinabove, decree for divorce came to be passed on 12-4-1983 and an application for maintenance came to be filed thereafter. Thereafter, an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the code came to be filed by the wife as observed hereinabove, decree for divorce came to be passed on 12-4-1983 and an application for maintenance came to be filed thereafter. It is an admitted position that both the Decrees as aforesaid have become final and not carried to the higher forum. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on the evidence on record and the aforesaid proceedings between the parties in civil Court. Relying on the said material, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reached to the conclusion that there was no neglect, desertion or refusal on the part of the husband and on the contrary, the wife has voluntarily deserted the husband which would disqualify and disentitle her from claiming maintenance while leaving separate. This finding of fact is quite reasonable and fully justifiable in light of the facts of the case and there is no material worth candle on record to interfere with the said findings of fact. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 - husband has also relied on the decision of this court reported in 1986 GLH 778 . This decision fully supports the version raised on behalf of the husband in this petition. It is held by this Court in the said reported decision that the wife would not be qualified to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Code when the husband has obtained a decree of Civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife. Apart from the civil Proceedings between the parlies, the learned additional Sessions Judge has observed from the facts and the evidence adduced before the trial Court that there was no desertion, cruelty or neglect on the part of the husband. So, from the authoritative point of view and the interpretions of the evidence on both the courts, the present revision in so far the claim of the wife is concerned deserves rejection. ( 8 ) THIS will lead us to the appreciation of the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be mentioned at this stage that the learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 Mr. Ajmcra raised preliminary objection the this contention cannot be interpreted at this stage in this revision. ( 8 ) THIS will lead us to the appreciation of the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be mentioned at this stage that the learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 Mr. Ajmcra raised preliminary objection the this contention cannot be interpreted at this stage in this revision. In that, he contends that the decision in favour of minor daughter sheetal was not challenged before the Sessions court and therefore, the decision of the learned judicial Magistrate, F. C. cannot be now challenged in this revision at the time of hearing of this matter. Irrespective of the merits of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 Mr. Ajmera states on instruction from opponent-husband that the minor daughter Sheetal may be awarded Rs. 40. 00 more towards her maintenance. Thus, he has fairly conceded that the minor daughter Sheetal may be awarded additional of Rs. 40. 00 towards her maintenance by way of additional amount from the date 1-2-1991. In view of the aforesaid statement, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not raised the second contention. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the present revision in so far as the petitioner No. 1 wifes claim for maintenance is concerned, is required to be dismissed. However, in so far as the claim for minor daughter Sheetal is concerned, it is required to be enhanced from Rs. 60. 00 to Rs. 100. 00 per month on concession from 1-2-1991. ( 10 ) IN the net result, this petition is partly allowed. The claim of wife for her maintenance is dismissed whereas the amount of maintenance awarded to the minor daughter Sheetal at Rs. 60. 00 is enhanced to Rs. 100. 00 which will be effective from 1-2-1991. Looking to the facts of the present case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .