JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the Order dated 21-3-90 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in criminal revision No. 76/89 whereby he allowed the revision, reversing the Order of A.C.J.M., Sausar, passed on 27-4-89 in M.Cr.C. No. 210/84. 2. If Applicant, wife of non-applicant No. 1 moved an application Under Section ) 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before A.C.J.M. for grant of maintenance allowance to her as also to her 3 children on the ground that after one year of the marriage of the applicant the non applicant No. 1 developed intimacy with one Rajnibai and he passed most of his time with the said lady and neglected the applicant and her children who were born out of his wed-lock. Non-applicant No. 1 always treated her with cruelty and ultimately the non-applicant No. 1 turned her out from the house and locked the house. The applicant also informed the police by Annexure P-1 she also sent lawyer's notice under registered cover to the non-applicant Ex. P. 3. Despite that the non-applicant No. 1 did not care to maintain her or to her children. The non-applicant No. 1 was drawing salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month, she therefore, prayed for grant of maintenance to herself and her children at the rate of Rs. 900/- p.m. 3. The non-applicant No. 1 contested the claim of the applicant. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence granted maintenance allowance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- each of the three children. As against the Order of grant of maintenance, the non-applicant, No. 1 preferred criminal revision before the S.J., Chhindwara who reversed the order of the Trial Court so far the grant of maintenance allowance to the applicant was concerned. 4. Shri Khan learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that the marriage of the applicant with non-applicant No. 1 is admitted. It is also admitted that non-applicant 2 to 4 were born to the applicant out of the wed-lock of non-applicant No. 1. It is also admitted that non-applicant No. 1 is not maintaining the applicant and her children. He however contended that even if the photograph of the non-applicant with his beloved Rajnibai Ex. P-6 be not accepted to be true. Even then the claim of the applicant stands proved, from the F.I.R. Ex. It is also admitted that non-applicant No. 1 is not maintaining the applicant and her children. He however contended that even if the photograph of the non-applicant with his beloved Rajnibai Ex. P-6 be not accepted to be true. Even then the claim of the applicant stands proved, from the F.I.R. Ex. P-1 Lawyers notice Ex.P-3 and her statement in Court. 5. The contention of Shri Khan is well founded. The petition must succeed. Shri Pandey however contended that photograph Ex. P-6 is out of photographic trick. 6. Keeping in view the evidence on record i.e. Ex.P-1 and Ex. P.3 and the evidence of the applicant, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside. The order of the Trial Court is confirmed. In the result the petition is allowed.