Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh (for short, "the revisional Court") in Revision Petition No. 1/2004 , by which the revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the Order dated 11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, (for short, "the trial Court") allowing maintenance @ Rs. 400/-per month to non-petitioner Smt. Geeta from the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for decision of this miscellaneous petition are that non-petitioner Smt. Geeta filed an application under Section 125 CrPC against petitioner Shanti Lal before the trial Court, inter alia, alleging that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites. Out of this wed-lock, a female child, viz. Miss Nankalan, was born. They lived together for 18 years as husband and wife but during this period, the petitioner-husband did not behave decently and used to beat her off and on. She tolerated all these but ultimately when the petitioner contacted "Nata" with one Kailashi Bai and on being objected by her, the petitioner turned out her from the matrimonial home and since then she is living separate in village Jamlawada. The petitioner neither turned up to take back her to his house nor paid any amount of maintenance. She has no independent source of income. She further stated that the petitioner has nearly 6 Bighas of land and earns Rs. One lac from the agriculture. He also received a sum of Rs. Seven lac from the Indian Oil towards compensation for acquisition of the land. The petitioner filed reply and denied the averments made in the application for maintenance. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, vide order dated 11.2003, allowed maintenance to the non-petitioner @ Rs. 400/-per month. Being aggrieved with the order of the trial Court, petitioner-husband preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.08.2004. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned passed by the Courts below. 4. 400/-per month. Being aggrieved with the order of the trial Court, petitioner-husband preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.08.2004. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned passed by the Courts below. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that on account of contact second marriage by the petitioner, the non-petitioner has justified reason to live separately. The trial Court, while granting maintenance @ Rs. 400/-per month, held that even if it is presumed that the non-petitioner may earn Rs. 60/-per day then it is no ground for refusal to grant maintenance to her, particularly when the petitioner has 1.3 Hectors of irrigated agricultural land and he also earns Rs. 60/-per day from labour work. A perusal of the order of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court has given detailed and convincing reasons for allowing maintenance to the non-petition. The revisional Court, by a detailed and reasoned order, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on sound and proper appreciation of material evidence placed on record. After perusal of the orders impugned passed by the Courts below, I find no error, illegality or perversity in the orders impugned, which may require interference by this Court. 5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the miscellaneous petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The stay petition also stands dismissed.