Judgment ( 1. ) BY order dated 27th of June, 2001 Ku. Bhawna Sadho, J. M. F. C. Bhopal granted a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- in total to non-applicant and her 3 minor daughters, under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C This petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid order in Cr. Rev. No. 307/2001, which stood disposed of by Special Judge and A. S. J. Bhopal on 20th of September, 2001. ( 2. ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that non-applicant is not his legally wedded wife and the petitioner earns a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-only, out of which 2,000/- is ordered to be given to non-applicant and her daughters, whereas this petitioner has to maintain 5 members inclusive of his parents. So far as the 1st objection is concerned the learned J. M. F. C. has recorded the opinion against this petitioner. On appreciation of evidence, the learned A. S. J. has also considered the evidence of the parties on this point. Since re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers, the first ground taken on behalf of the petitioner falls in the ground. ( 3. ) SO far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the finding is not to be interfered with in exercise of inherent powers because it is recorded on appreciation of evidence. It is submitted by Mr. Dixit that the evidence is not appreciated on this point by the learned J. M. F. C. But the facts and circumstances available on record are found to have been appreciated in para 13 of the order passed by J. M. F. C. and para 14 of the order passed by Revisional Court. Since the exercise of discretion is not found to be perverse or illegal on the appreciation of aforesaid facts and circumstances no interference in exercise of inherent powers is required in this case and hence this petition does not merit which is liable to be disallowed and rejected at this stage. ( 4. ) ONE more submission is made by Mr. Dixit that in para 9 of the petition it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the non-applicant is earning Rs. 4,000/- p. m. as salary and to rebut this fact no affidavit has been filed on behalf of non-applicant hence this fact has to be accepted. It is also submitted by Mr. Dixit that in para 9 of the petition it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the non-applicant is earning Rs. 4,000/- p. m. as salary and to rebut this fact no affidavit has been filed on behalf of non-applicant hence this fact has to be accepted. It is also submitted by Mr. Dixit that this fact was net in the knowledge of the petitioner earlier, therefore, this ground could not be taken before J. M. F. C. or any Revisional Court. Since this fact was neither in consideration before the learned J. M. F. C. nor in the Court of revision, the same is not required to be considered for the first time in exercise of inherent powers, and hence this submission is also turned down that the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. This petition is thus disallowed and rejected, being without merits.