JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. This criminal revision petition petition under Section 397 read with.Sec. 401 Cr.RC raised out of the order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class No. 2, Alwar, whereby the petitioners application filed under Section 125 (5) Cr.RC. was dismissed. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 1.9.98. As per the petitioner, the behaviour of his wife right from begining was abnormal and unbecoming of a wife. She ultimately left the company of her husband on 24.12.99 alongwith entire ornaments, cloths etc. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal rights. This petition was allowed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jaipur vide its order dated 25.7.2001, of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court. 4. It is submitted that prior to the decision on the application for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.RC. for grant of maintenance in the court of Judicial Magistrate Alwar. The learned Magistrate vide its order dated 12.2.2001 granted interim maintenance of Rs. 500/-to the respondent wife. The petitioner challenged the order granting interim maintenance through a revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar dismissed this revision petition. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 125 Cr.RC. before the learned Judicial Magistrate praying therein that the order granting interim maintenance may be revoked as the respondent wife has left the company of her husband without there being any cause and that she has deprived him of his martial relations. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner vide its order dated 14.2.2002 observing that there was no sufficient ground and that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed exparte on 25.7.2001 i.e. much after the order granting interim maintenance was passed on 12.2.2001. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order only on the ground of decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, it is argued that since the learned Judge, Family Court has already passed decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent wife is not entitled to get any interim maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order only on the ground of decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, it is argued that since the learned Judge, Family Court has already passed decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent wife is not entitled to get any interim maintenance. 7. I have considered the above submission. In my considered view the above ground is not available to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the decree for restitution of conjugal right was obtained by the husband petitioner subsequent to the order for grant of interim maintenance by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.RC. It may also be stated that an ex-parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights granted by the Family Court in favour of the husband is not binding on the criminal court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.PC. Such decree passed by Civil Court in exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction would be binding between the parties in respect of matters pending before the Matrimonial Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C- only if in the proceedings pending before the Civil Court, specific issues have been framed and the parties have been given opportunity to lead evidence and specific findings are record by the Civil Court. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the case expeditiously.Revision Petition dismissed. *******