N. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Kirti Saxena (Opposite party No. 2) had moved an application under section 125 Cr. P. C. in the court of C. J. M. Budaun against her husband Rajiv Saksena (Revisionist ). The application was registered as case No. 2279 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE allegations of Smt. Kirti Saksena were that she was married to Rajiv Saksena on 30. 8. 1988 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Although sufficient dowry was provided by the father of Smt. Kiriti Saksena, her husband and in laws were not happy with the dowry. The husband and in laws started harassing and meal-treating Smt. Kiriti Saksena. The husband and in laws even poured boiling vegetable oil upon Smt. Kiriti Saksena and their intention to kill her. Smt. Kiriti Saksenas hands were burnt. She was turned out by her husband and in laws from the house on 25. 4. 1988 only in wearing cloths. Since then she is residing with her father. The husband has neglected to maintain her. The monthly income of the husband is about Rs. 1,500/- and he is in a position to pay Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance allowance to Smt. Kiriti Saksena. ( 3 ) RAJIV Saksena put in appearance and contested the claim of his wife admitting the factum of marriage. Rajiv Saksena refuted the entire allegations of his wife. He even took the plea that he had no independent means to provide any maintenance, as he was unemployed. It was also pleaded by Rajiv Saksena that his wife herself wanted divorce from him although he was willing to keep her with him. ( 4 ) PARTIES had led evidence in support of their respective cases before the learned C. J. M. The learned C. J. M. recorded a finding to the effect that the complainant failed to prove her case. Consequently, the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. was dismissed on 30. 2. 1990. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order of the learned C. J. M. , Smt. Saksena went in revision nod revision application (Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1990) was allowed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun on 21. 8. Consequently, the application under section 125 Cr. P. C. was dismissed on 30. 2. 1990. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order of the learned C. J. M. , Smt. Saksena went in revision nod revision application (Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1990) was allowed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun on 21. 8. 1990 and the case was remanded back to the learned C. J. M. for a fresh trial in accordance with the directions contained in the order of remand. It is against this order dated 2 1. 8. 1990 that Rajiv Saksena has come in revision. ( 6 ) NOTICE was issued to Smt. Kiriti Saksena. Shri G. C. Saksena and Shri G. S. Bisaria have put in appearance for Smt. Kiriti Saksena. The revision application is being disposed of at the admission stage. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the judgment of the courts below. The learned Sessions Judge has not finally disposed of the application of Smt. Kiriti Saksena under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and has simply remanded the case back to the courts of learned C. J. M. with the direction to re-hear the case in accordance with the directions contained in the order of remand. I have carefully come through the order of the learned Sessions Judge and the directions contained therein. It cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any illegality in his judgment. The main ground for remand is that the learned Magistrate has not recorded any finding on the question whether Rajiv Saksena has sufficient means to maintain his wife and whether Smt. Kiriti Saksena is unable to maintain herself. In the absence of any findings of the trial court on these points, the learned sessions Judge had no option but to remand the case for fresh trial because it was not open to the learned sessions judge to substitute his own finding. In this view of the matter, the present revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .