JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court by way of the present revision petition. against the order dated 14.5.1998 passed by learned Judge Family Court Jaipur in Case No. 32/96 whereby the respondent-wife's application filed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court Jaipur for grant of maintenance against the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") on the grounds interalia that the marriage between them was solemnised on 10.12.1994 at Jaipur. Thereafter, the respondent lived and cohabited with the petitioner at Phulera. In January, 1995, the petitioner brought his wife to Jaipur to visit her parents on two or three occasions and took her back to Phulera. There are allegations of maltreatment of respondent by the petitioner. On 12.2.1995, the petitioner brought his wife (respondent) to Jaipur to see her parents and thereafter, the petitioner proceeded to Phulera without informing her. It has further been stated in the application moved by the respondent under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code that ever since then, the respondent has been living in separation from her husband being deserted by him without any reasonable cause. The application was duly contested by the petitioner alleging that the respondent got pregnant from some other person and she had already conceived prior to solemnisation of her marriage with the petitioner and this fact was concealed from him and hence the marriage was null and void. In this regard, the petitioner had also filed a separate petition on 19.7.1995 but with no results. In her application, the respondent has specifically stated that she was employed in Bhandari Hospital at Jaipur while the petitioner is employed as Electric Fitter Grade- III in Railways and is getting gross salary of Rs. 2,602/- per month. In support of her case, the respondent herself appeared as P.W. 1 besides, examined Ms. Ruchi ( P.W. 2), Ravindra Mishra ( P.W. 3) and Ambika Prasad Shukla ( P.W. 4). The petitioner in support of his case appeared himself as DW 1 besides, examined Vishnu Indra Sharma (DW 2) and Nand Lal (DW 3). 3. The learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur after hearing the parties held that the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. The petitioner in support of his case appeared himself as DW 1 besides, examined Vishnu Indra Sharma (DW 2) and Nand Lal (DW 3). 3. The learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur after hearing the parties held that the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner from the date of her application dated 6.1.1996. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Family Court, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of present revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the impugned-order dated 14.5.1998 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Jaipur in Case No. 32/96. Prima- facie, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court as the same is perfectly just and having been passed in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that there is no evidence on the record to show that the respondent was having illicit relations with some one else prior to solemnisation of her marriage with the petitioner in absence of which, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at any conclusion as to whether the respondent was having illicit relations with some one else. Moreover, this by itself cannot be a ground for disallowing the wife's claim for award of maintenance as per the requirement of the provisions of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code which stipulates, as under : "ORDER for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Moreover, this by itself cannot be a ground for disallowing the wife's claim for award of maintenance as per the requirement of the provisions of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code which stipulates, as under : "ORDER for maintenance of wives, children and parents. - (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain : (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct." 5. What the wife who has been unlawfully deserted by her husband is required to establish in order to sustain her claim for award of maintenance as per the requirements of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is that if the husband who is having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife without any reasonable cause or excuse, the wife is within her rights to move to the appropriate forum for vindication of her rights for award of maintenance not only for herself but also for her children from the said marriage and the husband is duty bound to maintain them. The object of this legislation is benevolent and cannot be permitted to be frustrated or defeated by adopting any excuse whatsoever. 6. As a result of above discussion, I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned Judge, Family Court Jaipur dated 14.5.1998 passed in Case No. 32/96 allowing the respondent's application and awarding Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. This revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******