ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - Harnek Singh has filed the present revisions petition to challenge the order dated 18.11.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 2. Mohinder Kaur had moved an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner asserting that she was married to him and had lived with him at the residential house in village Karal Majra upto 1973, whereafter they had shifted to Kajheri in November 1991. The petitioner had left her and their son and shifted to Karal Majra, whereafter she had been living with her nephew Sukhbir Singh in a rented house. Although, the petitioner is employed as a tractor driver in the department of Horticulture and is getting Rs. 1500/- per month as salary apart from earning Rs. 1000/- per month from the agricultural holding, yet the petitioner has never paid her any maintenance. 3. The application was contested on various grounds including the assertions to the effect that the wife used to run away to her parental home without the permission of the husband and was not allowing him sexual intercourse nor did she use to perform any marital duties and, therefore, was not entitled to any maintenance. He denied that he was working as a driver and asserted that he had no agricultural income. 4. The Judicial Magistrate had accepted the defence and rejected the plea of the wife who had filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was accepted and after reversing the findings returned by the Magistrate, a sum of Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance was awarded to the wife. Against this order, the husband has come up in revision. 5. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it has been urged that after the admission of the present revision, the petitioner has not deposited the amount of maintenance due from him and therefore the revision should be dismissed. 6. At the time of admission, this Court had stayed the recovery of half the amount fixed as maintenance, but it seems that even the amount of Rs. 125/- per month has not been paid to the wife, which fact by itself to my mind would disentitle the petitioner to any relief in this revision. Even otherwise, on going through the record, I do not find any circumstance which would warrant interference in the revision. 125/- per month has not been paid to the wife, which fact by itself to my mind would disentitle the petitioner to any relief in this revision. Even otherwise, on going through the record, I do not find any circumstance which would warrant interference in the revision. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Revision dismissed.