JUDGMENT 1. - Since 16.7.2007 till date this case has been listed on board. however the learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared before this Court. There fore, this Court has no option but to decided this case on merit. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.5.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Sikar whereby the learned Judge had dismissed the application filed under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for short). The accused petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sikar whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 9.5.2001. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were married according to Muslim rites and customs. They lived as husband and wife for a long time. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the family Court, Jaipur. During the pendency of the said proceedings, on 14.3.1997 the parties entered into the compromise and the non-petitioner agreed to go back to the matrimonial home. Therefore, the said case was decided on 26.4.1997 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. But, it seems that thereafter some differences took place between the husband and the wife. Subsequently, the non-petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code which was decided in her favour vide order dated 3.11.1999. The learned Court directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the non-petitioner from 24.1.1996. Since the petitioner did not pay the said amount, the non-petitioner moved an application under Section 125(3) of the Code for issuance of the warrant for levying the amount due. Vide order dated 9.5.2001 the learned Magistrate issued the said warrant. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned District Court. However, vide order dated 24.7.2001 the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petitioner before this Court. 4. None present for the petitioner. 5. However, Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the impugned orders on the ground that once an order has been passed under Section 125 of Code, it is the legal duty of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and she is entitled to recover the maintenance amount. 4. None present for the petitioner. 5. However, Mr. N.A. Naqvi, the learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the impugned orders on the ground that once an order has been passed under Section 125 of Code, it is the legal duty of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and she is entitled to recover the maintenance amount. According to the petitioner himself, he did not pay the maintenance to the non-petitioner till the year 2000. Therefore, the wife was entitled to recover the maintenance from 24.1.1996 till 14.6.2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent, and have perused the impugned orders. 6. Section 125 of the Code has been enacted just to give benefit of maintenance to the wife, children and parents. The learned trial Court passed the order dated 1.1.1998 directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the non-petitioner. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner. The said order has attained finality. Since the petitioner has not paid the said amount to the non-petitioner, therefore, the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge have passed the impugned order against the petitioner. Both the impugned orders are, hence, legally valid. 7. In the result, this petition has no merit; it is, hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******