JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Saventi Bai, wife of non-petitioner Jagannath, and their daughter petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai have filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 13.7.1995, passed by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No. 66/93. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Saventi Bai initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C., for maintenance from non-petitioner Jagannath for herself and her daughter, petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai. Non-petitioner Jagannath in his reply, filed by him to the above application, admitted that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Saventi Bai is his 'legally wedded wife', and petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai was their daughter. The Trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, found that petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai and her daughter Ku. Kala Bai were entitled*to grant of maintenance and, therefore, vide order dated 5.8.1993 granted maintenance of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/-- to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, and the same was made payable from the date of the order. 3. Non-petitioner Jagannath, being aggrieved of the above grant of maintenance, filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa vide order dated 13.7.1995, set aside the above grant of maintenance in favour of petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai and Ku. Kala Bai, and dismissed their application filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. This order is the subject matter of the present revision petition. 4. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Revisional Court has erred in setting aside the well reasoned order, passed by the Trial Court, granting maintenance to the petitioners. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Revisional Court has transgressed its limit by disturbing the findings of fact, recorded by the Trial Court, which were based on the evidence on record. 5. Mr. J.P.Pandey, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the parties and, therefore, the Revisional Court was duty bound to interfere. 6. 5. Mr. J.P.Pandey, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the parties and, therefore, the Revisional Court was duty bound to interfere. 6. On considering the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, and the order dated 5.8.1993, passed by the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Revisional Court has gone wrong in setting aside the findings, recorded by the Trial Court, which were based on the evidence of Smt. Saventi Bai (NA /1) and her other witnesses. The Revisional Court has also erred in overlooking the admissions of non-petitioner Jagannath, who had examined himself as NAW/1, in the Court. On perusing his admissions, contained in paras 2, 3 and 4 of his statement, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on the evidence on record and, therefore, were not open to interference by the Revisional Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner does not dispute that petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai is 'legally wedded wife' of the non-petitioner. Petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai is their daughter is also not in dispute. Smt. Saventi Bai (AW/1) has categorically stated in her statement that the behaviour of her husband, non-petitioner Jagannath, towards her was full of cruelty. From the admissions of non-petitioner Jagannath, it is apparent that after Smt. Saventi Bai had gone to her parents house, on the festival of 'Rakshabandhan', he did not visit her for a period of 2 years. It is also to be found in his admission that for a period of 2 years, during which the petitioner was made to stay at her parents house, non-petitioner Jagannath did not send any message to his wife, petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai, for coming and staying with him. Petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai had specifically stated in her statement that on account of her physical condition, she is not able to maintain herself. It is also in the evidence that petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai was living with her mother, petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai. There does not appear to be any material on record to indicate that any efforts were made by the non-petitioner for obtaining the custody of petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai. 8. On the above narration of facts, petitioners Smt. Saventi Bai and Ku. Kala Bai was living with her mother, petitioner Smt. Saventi Bai. There does not appear to be any material on record to indicate that any efforts were made by the non-petitioner for obtaining the custody of petitioner No. 2 Ku. Kala Bai. 8. On the above narration of facts, petitioners Smt. Saventi Bai and Ku. Kala Bai are en titled to grant of maintenance from non-petitioner Jagannath. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly granted maintenance to the petitioners. For the reasons, mentioned above, it is apparent that the Revisional Court has gone wrong in interfering with the above grant of maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, being illegal is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court, granting maintenance to the petitioners, deserves to be restored. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition, filed by the petitioners, deserve to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 13.7.1995, passed by Und Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No. 66/93, is hereby set aside. The order dated 5.8.1993, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 15/90, granting maintenance @ Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- per month to petitioners 1 and 2-Smt. Saventi Bai and Ku. Kala Bai which was made payable from 5.8.1993, is restored.