ORDER 1. Arguments heard. 2. Non-appellants No.1 to 4 filed a petition under section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 claims herself to be the wife and other respondents claim themselves to be the children of the petitioner. The petition was combated by the petitioner. After trial, the trial Court recorded the findings that the petitioner having sufficient means neglected or refused to maintain his wife and children and granted maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month to wife and @ Rs.300/- per month to each of respondents No.2, 3 and 4. Being aggrieved, by the judgment of the trial Court petitioner filed a revision before IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara which was also dismissed. It is this order of the revisional Court which is the cause of grievance of the petitioner. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that a plea was raised by the petitioner before the trial Court that he is prepared to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him. He also obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.1994, passed by District Judge, Chhindwara. Despite this decree respondent No.1 did not come to live with him. In this view of the matter the orders of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 4. I have perused the record. The petitioner filed a copy of decree for restitution of conjugal rights which was exhibited as document D-l. But this document was not considered at all either by the trial Court or by the revisional Court. Where the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the applicant and against the wife and despite this decree the wife did not go to live with the husband, the husband was not under an obligation to maintain her (wife). There is no evidence that after the decree respondent No.1 went to live with the husband and the husband subjected her to cruelty. No satisfactory evidence has been given that there was just ground for the wife to refuse to live with the husband. 5. In view of the fact that respondent No. 1 herself did not prefer to live with the husband despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the Courts below committed error in awarding maintenance amount to the respondent No. 1. 5. In view of the fact that respondent No. 1 herself did not prefer to live with the husband despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the Courts below committed error in awarding maintenance amount to the respondent No. 1. To that extent the orders of the Courts below cannot be upheld, so far as they relate to grant of maintenance to the wife. 6. Regarding other respondents, the counsel for the petitioner submits that some of them have attained majority and after the date of attaining the majority they are not entitled to any maintenance. This plea can be raised before the trial Court only by filing an application under section 127 of the CrPC. 7. No finding regarding the age of the respondents can be given in this petition. For the above reasons the petition is allowed. The orders of the Courts below so far as it relates to grant of maintenance to the respondent No.1 is set aside.