JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - When Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 6039 and 6040 of 2001 filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9596-M of 1995 were placed for hearing before this Court on February 26, 2004, the case was adjourned for today with the observations that on the adjourned date, the main case will be taken up for arguments. 2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6039 has been filed for setting aside the order dated January 6, 2001 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul vide which conditional warrants of arrest of respondent have been issued on account of non-payment of maintenance allowance as ordered by the court, and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6040 of 2001 has been filed for staying the operation of said order. 3. I have heard arguments of counsel for the parties in the main case. 4. The petitioner-husband filed the main petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated November 9, 1993 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul vide which on the application filed by the respondent-wife and her minor son under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for the wife and at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for the minor child was granted. The said order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda in the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide his order dated April 26, 1995. In the main petition, the petitioner has challenged both the abovesaid orders. 5. Though the petitioner has not disputed the factum of marriage and the birth of the minor child, but he alleged that the respondent-wife was not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code as she was living in adultery and that she could not establish before the trial Court that she was being neglected by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-wife was not joining to the matrimonial home inspite of efforts made by the petitioner. Therefore, he has to file a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed ex parte. He further submitted that after the grant of decree of divorce, the petitioner was not liable to pay any maintenance. 6. Therefore, he has to file a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed ex parte. He further submitted that after the grant of decree of divorce, the petitioner was not liable to pay any maintenance. 6. The counsel for the respondents has controverted all the averments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the ex parte decree of divorce fraudulently obtained by the petitioner was subsequently set aside by the Court on the application filed by the respondent-wife. He further submitted that both the Courts below recorded a finding that the petitioner was not maintaining the respondent-wife and the child without any justification. It was further held that both the claimants were unable to maintain themselves. It was also found that the petitioner was running a Mini Truck at Bhucho Mandi and his monthly income was near about Rs. 10,000/- per month. On these findings, the Courts have granted maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month to the child. 7. Taking into consideration the income of the petitioner and other peculiar facts and circumstances of his case, in my opinion, the maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife and her son cannot be termed to be on the higher side. The Courts below have considered all the respects of the case. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below as also the maintenance granted to the respondent-wife and her son. Consequently, this main petition is dismissed being without any merit. 8. In view of dismissal of main petition, Criminal Misc. No. 6039 and 6040 of 2001 filed by the petitioner have become infructuous and are dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.