JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No. 1-Rajan Devi. The respondent No. 2 is the son of the petitioner. An application under sections 125 Criminal Procedure Code was moved by the wife for maintenance alleging therein that she was beaten by the petitioner-husband and turned out of the house. Exparte proceedings were held and the application was allowed by the trial Court on 3.7.1996 whereby a total amount of Rs. 300/- p.m. was fixed for the wife and Rs. 200/- p.m. for the minor child from the date of the presentation of the application i.e. 19.12.1995. The petitioner had applied for setting aside exparte order which was set aside. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted exparte divorce by Mathura Court (I J.P.) on 18.12.1995 and at the time of divorce there were three children from the wed-lock. The divorce decree was exparte against the wife and is said to have attained finality. 3. After the earlier exparte order of the trial Court had been set aside, the trial Court again after hearing the petitioner passed the order maintaining the allowance as already granted from the date of application vide order dated 16.12.1996 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Even a review application was also filed as per directions. The review application has been rejected on 3.9.1998. 4. The only contention being raised by the petitioner is that the respondent wife had left the house in the year 1994 and there was no question of birth of respondent No. 2 from the wed-lock of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the orders impugned, I do not find any reason to interfere. The respondent was legally wedded wife and as per the findings given by the trial Court, she was entitled to maintenance. The grant of Rs. 300/- p.m. to the wife and Rs. 200/- p.m. for the child are not required to be interfered.The criminal misc. petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******