JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated April 26, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Sesa Ram. 2. Smt. Teeja W/o Sesa Ram filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat, on the ground that she was ill treated by her husband, was turned out from the house and thereafter the non-applicant Sesa Ram contracted second marriage. This application was contested by the husband. The averments made in the application were denied. The factum of ill-treatment, turning the wife from the house as well as of the second marriage were denied. The applicant, in support of its case, examined herself as AW 1 and, also, examined Chatra Ram as AW 2 and Hari Ram as AW 3. The husband non applicant did not produce any evidence in support of his case though sufficient opportunities were given to him. 3. AW 1 Smt. Teeja has stated that after the death of his parents, her husband asked her to bring some, money or the governments otherwise he will not keep her. He used to give beating to her and ultimately she was turned-out from the house. She has, also, stated that Sesa Ram has contracted second marriage with one Mst. Prem daughter of Shri Pokarji R/o Sojat. She has further stated that she filed a suit in the Civil Court to restrain the non-applicant to contract second marriage, but still he performed the second marriage with Mst. Prem. PW. 2 Chatra Ram, who is the brother of the applicant Smt. Teeja, has corroborated the evidence of AW 1 Teeja on all the points. He has stated that Sesa Ram used to ask Smt. Teeja to bring some governments otherwise he will contract second marriage and after giving beating he turned-out his sister Teeja. Similar is the statement of AW 3 Hari Ram, who was one of the persons of the Panchayat who wanted to make the conciliation between the parties. Even on the point of second marriage, no cross-examination was done by the counsel for the non-applicant. The learned trial Court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the husband Sesa Ram has neglected and refused to maintain Smt. Teeja and she was turned-out from the house by the husband. Even on the point of second marriage, no cross-examination was done by the counsel for the non-applicant. The learned trial Court, after trial, came to the conclusion that the husband Sesa Ram has neglected and refused to maintain Smt. Teeja and she was turned-out from the house by the husband. The learned trial Court, also, came to the conclusion that she was ill-treated by her husband. The learned trial Court, also, came to the conclusion that the husband has contracted the second marriage. The trial Court, therefore, allowed the application for the grant of the maintenance and awarded Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to the wife Smt. Teeja. Dissatisfied with the judgement dated May 25, 1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, who, by his order dated April 26, 1990, dismissed the revision petition. It is against this order dated April 26, 1990, that this miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Sesa Ram. 4. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the case of the applicant and the learned trial Court arbitrarily closed his evidence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner never neglected or refused to maintain the wife. He has, also, submitted that he never contracted second marriage. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was granted sufficient time to produce his witnesses, but he did not produce the same. The case was fixed for the evidence of the non-applicant on 24.9.88, but on that day the case could not be taken on account of the strike of the employees and the case was adjourned to 29.10.88. On 29.10.88, no evidence was produced by the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 2.1.89. On 2.1.89 no witness was present and the last opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his evidence and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner on 13.2.89. On account of the strike of the Government employees the case could not be taken-up on that day and was adjourned to 14.3.89. On 2.1.89 no witness was present and the last opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his evidence and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner on 13.2.89. On account of the strike of the Government employees the case could not be taken-up on that day and was adjourned to 14.3.89. On 14.3.89, the petitioner sought time to produce the evidence, which was granted by the Court below on payment of cost of Rs. 25/- and the case was adjourned to 11.5.89. Neither the cost was paid nor was the evidence produced on 11.5.89. On that day it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that he does not want to produce any evidence and, therefore, his evidence was closed. 7. From these facts, it is, thus, clear that the Court granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to produce his evidence, but he did not produce the same, rather, on 11.5.89, he stated before the Court that he did not want to produce any evidence. In this view of the matter, the learned lower Court committed no illegality in deciding the case without any evidence produced on behalf of the non-applicant. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly allowed the application filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. All the witnesses, in their examination-in-Chief, have specifically stated that Sesa Ram contracted second marriage with one Smt. Prem D/o Shri Pokaraji R/o Sojat and no cross examination was done on this point. It is, thus, clear from the evidence, produced by the applicant that the petitioner has contracted second marriage with Mst. Prem. The neglect and refusal to maintain the wife by the husband is, also, proved. Even otherwise, the wife is entitled to live separately if the husband contracts second marriage. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******