Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay the learned A.RP. for the State. Although the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have appeared through vakalatnama but none is present on their behalf. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.7.2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2004 whereby he has dismissed the revision confirming the order dated 23.9.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Siwan in Misc. Case No. 68 of 2004 (Tr. No. 1658 of 2004) whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1000.00 per month and to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 at the rate of Rs. 500.00 each per month and Rs. 150/ per month was directed to be paid as litigation cost. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in law by dismissing the revision preferred by him on wholly erroneous grounds and without assigning any cogent reason thereof. It was also sought to be submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not acted in consonance with the provision of Sec.125(1) Cr.RC. inasmuch as he had not given any finding as to whether the said wife was or was not living with the husband who was ready to keep and maintain his wife. 4. Be that as it may, the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan to hear the criminal revision a fresh and in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.