JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner wife has filed this petition challenging the impugned order dated 1.4.97 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 9/1997 whereby he set-aside the order dated 23.9.1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No. 50/91. The learned trial Judge, by his impugned order dated 23.9.1996 ordered the respondent husband to pay Rs.25,000/- as price for the material and Rs.300/- for iddat' period and for Mehar' Rs.32.45 Ps and also ordered to pay Rs.200/- on the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The aforesaid order was challenged by the husband in revision petition before the lower Appellate Court and the learned appellate court has allowed the revision petition and set-aside the order passed by the trial court. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court is challenged in this petition by the petitioner wife. 4. The learned counsel Shri Surana for the petitioner vehemently argued that the lower appellate court erred in exercising it's revisional jurisdiction. He submitted that it was not open to the Sessions Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. 5. There is substance in the submission made by Shri Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Going through the order passed by the lower appellate court in revision petition. He could not have re-appreciated the evidence in revision petition. In view of the above, this petition is required to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, this Misc. Petition is allowed the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Jaipur dated 1.4.1997 in Criminal Revision No. 9/97 is hereby set-aside and the order passed by the trial court is restored. 7. At this stage, it was pointed out by the learned counsel Shri Banwari Lal Sharma for the respondent husband that a compromise was arrived between the parties for full and final settlement between the parties by which the husband agreed to pay Rs. 22,000/- which includes maintenance of minor children also. He further submitted that the petitioner wife back-out from the said compromise and she has filed an application for her maintenance and her minor children before the trial court. 22,000/- which includes maintenance of minor children also. He further submitted that the petitioner wife back-out from the said compromise and she has filed an application for her maintenance and her minor children before the trial court. If it is so then it will be open to the respondent husband to bring to the notice of the concerned court to deal with such maintenance application. It will be also open to the petitioner wife to point out the concerned court that it was not a part of compromise as aforesaid. I am sure, that as and when the parties approach the court below and raise their respective contentions the concerned court will take up the maintenance application and shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the basis of evidence led before it. 8. With these observations, this petition is allowed. 9. Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma counsel for the petitioner at this stage, prays for 3 months time to make the payment to which Mr. Surana learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Accordingly, 3 months time is granted to make payment as per order passed by the court below.> Petition Allowed. *******