JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Petitioner has moved this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer that order dated 4.1.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and that of Judicial Magistrate dated 6.10.1995 be quashed. 2. It is apparent from the records that respondent-wife moved an application, claiming maintenance before the trial Court. That application was allowed and she was granted Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance, vide order dated 6.10.1995. Husband filed a revision petition, which was dismissed, vide order dated 4.1.1997. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 3. Shri Sihota appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that since divorce between the parties had already been effected and they are Muslim, as such, they are not governed by the provisions of the Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code He prayed that this petition be allowed and the orders under challenge be quashed. 4. A reading of the paper book indicates that no doubt, such a plea of divorce was taken up by the petitioner but thereafter, he has failed to lead any evidence in that regard. Both the Courts below, after appreciating evidence, as led on record, have ultimately come to the opinion that wife is entitled to claim maintenance. Revisional court below, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband-petitioner, has formed the following opinion :- "8. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the divorce has taken place between the parties and therefore, Smt. Munni has no right to claim maintenance allowance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code In support of his submission, he made reference to 1990 Matrimonial Law Reporters 261 (Andhra Pradesh), titled as Usman Khan Bahamani v. Fathimunisa Begum and others, 1990(2) RCR(Crl.) 476 (A.P.). Developing his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that it has been pleaded in the written statement specifically that a divorce has taken place and in view of the pleadings of divorce in the written statement, a valid divorce has taken place. 9. During the course of trial, Smt. Munni herself appeared in witness box and during here cross-examination she denied the suggestion of divorce. Not an iota of evidence was led by the revisionist to prove the allegation of divorce. 9. During the course of trial, Smt. Munni herself appeared in witness box and during here cross-examination she denied the suggestion of divorce. Not an iota of evidence was led by the revisionist to prove the allegation of divorce. Even the pleadings of the revisionist is silent regarding the observation of Iddat period, and therefore, it cannot be said that the divorce, if any, has become irrevocable. The written statement pleading the plea of divorce was filed on 29.8.1992 whereas a copy of compromise having been taken pace in the presence of Panchayat was produced by the revisionist on 14.8.1994, wherein the subsistence of marriage was admitted. Meaning thereby, no valid divorce has taken place and therefore, observations made in the above reported authority are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners fixed by the learned trial Court does not appear to be excessive. Learned counsel could not point out any other infirmity in the order passed by learned Magistrate and therefore, I have no option but to dismiss the revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Lower Court file be sent back and revision file be consigned to the record-room." 5. This Court, feels that the plea of divorce has not been proved by the petitioner. Both the courts below have found it, as a matter of fact, that the applicant/respondent was deserted by the petitioner without any sufficient cause and keeping in view that fact maintenance was awarded to her. Otherwise also, a very meagre amount of Rs. 5000/- per month has been awarded, which requires no interference by this Court. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.