JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 13.5.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali upholding the order of maintenance dated 6.2.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. 2. Mr. Kumbhat contends that the petitioner-husband was not afforded adequate opportunities of leading evidence, and the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for adjuring the case. Mr. Kumbhat prays that the case be remanded for giving opportunity to the petitioner for leading evidence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the order of the Courts below. 3. I have considered the above arguments. At the outset, it may be stated that this misc. petition is nothing but a second revision against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate which is barred by Section 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code Vide Neeraj Kumar v. State, 1996 (2) WLC 215 . 4. Even on merits, the petition cannot be allowed. A perusal of the order sheets of the case shows that the case was fixed for evidence of the husband-petitioner on 18.12.1997, 3.1.1998, 12.1.1998, 19.1.1998 and 28.1.1998. On three dates the witnesses, who were present, were examined. On 28.1.1998 the evidence of the petitioner-husband was closed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that the petitioner was not prevented from bringing his witnesses on account of election work as by that date even the ballot papers had not been printed and the petitioner's duty was in the Postal Ballot Cell. 5. It cannot be accepted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner-husband. The petitioner-husband ought to have been vigilant in producing his evidence. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the petitioner-husband was not prevented from bringing his witnesses on account of elections. 6. It is expected that the Magistrate decides the matter of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code expeditiously. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was perfectly justified in not allowing the application of the petitioner-husband. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the arguments advanced in this respect. Simply because the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that five opportunities were given to the petitioner, the order cannot be set aside. As a matter of fact, five opportunities were given to the petitioner-husband because 28.1.1998 was also the date fixed for the evidence of the petitioner. 8. Simply because the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that five opportunities were given to the petitioner, the order cannot be set aside. As a matter of fact, five opportunities were given to the petitioner-husband because 28.1.1998 was also the date fixed for the evidence of the petitioner. 8. The learned Magistrate has held that the income of the husband is Rs. 5,000/- per month. He has not believed the evidence of the husband that Maku Devi (wife) was earning regularly. It cannot be said that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed any error in allowing the maintenance to Maku Devi on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. The amount awarded is also not excessive. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******