JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On the application filed by the non-petitioners under Section 125, Cr.P.C. the Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- to non-petitioner No. 1 wife and Rs. 500/- to non-petitioner No. 2 son. The petitioner preferred revision petition before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana vide order dated 8.9.2005 holding that the amount of maintenance determined by the Court below is perfectly just and does not warrant interference. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, referring to provisions of Section 125(4), Cr.P.C., contends that the non-petitioner wife herself chose to live separately without any reason, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He vehemently argues that the deserter wife is not entitled to any maintenance from the husband and placed reliance upon the order of this Court dated 8.3.2006 passed in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. Shimla, 2006 (4) RDD 2150 (Raj.) 4. I have carefully perused the orders impugned and also gone through the order of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. Shimla , (supra). Sub- section (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. disentitles the wife from maintenance in the event of adultery or desertion without any sufficient reason. The provision of sub-section-(4) is set out so lucidly that interpretative expression is not required to grope for its applicability. It is not the case in the matter on hand. There is allegation and counter-allegation; but, the fact remains that the question of desertion has neither been adjudicated upon nor is there any divorce decree in favour of the husband on such ground. 5. On the question of maintenance, the trial Court has elaborately dealt with the points raised before it by the parties and there is no error in the conclusion reached by it while granting maintenance to both, the wife and minor son. The petitioner is a permanent Government servant and is drawing salary at a rate more than Rs. 4,000/- per month. He has also been found beneficiary of tillage of 21 bigha agricultural land. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance granted by the Courts below is excessive or not in accordance with law. It does not make out any case for interference. 6. The petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******