JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J. 1. Petitioners Lajja Bai and Abhimanyu have filed this revision petition against the order dated 9.2.1994, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Multai in Cr. Revision No. 63/91, whereby the order dated 30.9.1991, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai in Case No. 233/87, granting maintenance of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 100/- per month to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, was set aside. 2. Petitioner Lajja Bai, Legally wedded wife of non petitioner Ram Singh, filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son, petitioner No. 2 Abhimanyu, alleging that her husband Ram Singh was subjecting her to cruelty, for pressing his demands for more dowry. The Trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties, found that petitioners Lajja Bai and her son Abhimanyu were entitled to receive maintenance from the non-petitioners and therefore passed the order granting maintenance of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 100/- per month to petitioner Lajja Bai and Abhimanyu respectively. The maintenance was made payable from the date of the order, which was passed on 30.9.1991. 3. Non-petitioner/husband Ram Singh, being aggrieved of the above grant of maintenance, filed a revision before the Court of Sessions. The Revisional Court held that petitioner/wife Lajja Bai was living separately from her husband, non-petitioner Ram Singh, without any sufficient cause and, therefore, was not entitled to grant of maintainance. On me above finding, the Revisional Court set aside the order of grant of maintenance, passed by the Trial Court. 4. Mr. S.K. Tiwary, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Revisional Court has transgressed its limits in setting aside the Trial Court's order, which was a well reasoned order, based on the evidence on record, Mr. Tiwary further contended that the Revisional Court has completely overlooked the fact that non-patitioner Ram Singh was being prosecuted for an offence under Section 498A, of the IPC, on the report of petitioner Lajja Bai. 5. Mr. Rakesh Jain, the learned Counsel for non-petitioner Ram Singh, on the other hand submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Revisional Court on a close scrutiny of the evidence on record and, therefore, does not call for any interference, in this revision. 6. Non-petitioner Ram Singh does not dispute mat petitioner Lajja Bai is his wife, and petitioner Abhimanyu is his son. 6. Non-petitioner Ram Singh does not dispute mat petitioner Lajja Bai is his wife, and petitioner Abhimanyu is his son. Ram Singh, in para 10 of his cross-examination, specifically admitted that he was being prosecuted by the Police for an offence under Section 498A, of the IPC, on the report of his wife, petitioner Lajja Bai. The Trial Court, in para 10 of its judgment, has considered the above fact of prosecution of non-petitioner/husband Ram Singh by the Police for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, on the report of petitioner/wife Lajja Bai. On the above material, the Trial Court found that the alleged acts of cruelty of non-petitioner/husband Ram Singh provided sufficient ground for petitioner/wife Lajja Bai for living separately, from her husband. 7. On perusing the Revision Court's order, it is found that surprisingly the Revisional Court has not even referred to the above material relating the prosecution of non-petitioner/husband Ram Singh for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, on the report of petitioner/wife Lajja Bai. The Revisional Court appears to have proceeded in deciding the revision petition on irrelevant assumptions and therefore, fell into error in setting aside the Trial Court's order, without considering the entire material available on record. 8. The inevitable conclusion of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated 9.2.1994, passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 63/ 91 is liable to be set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 30.9.1991, passed in Case No. 233/87, granting maintenance of Rs. 400/-and Rs. 100/- per month to petitioners Lajja Bai and Abhimanyu respectively, deserved to be restored. 9. The amount of maintenance granted by the Trial Court, of Rs. 400/- to petitioner Lajja Bai and Rs. 100/- to minor child Abhimanyu, in the context of the present price index cannot be said to be excessive, in any manner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition filed by petitioners Lajja Bai and Abhimanyu is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.2.1994, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Multai in Criminal Revision No. 63/91 is hereby set aside. The order dated 30.9.1991, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai in Case No. 233/87 is restored.