JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara Camp at Gangapur (for short the revisional Court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.5.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur (for short the trial Court' hereinafter) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below as also the record of the trial Court. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner though the petitioner is serving in "Aanganwadi" and earning some amount, yet it cannot be a ground to deny the monthly allowance of maintenance. It is further contended that respondent has contacted second marriage i.e. "Nata Marrige" with one Ram and, therefore, the petitioner has a reasonable and plausible cause not to live with the respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is the petitioner, who willfully deserted the respondent husband and has been living at her parent's house since 2000. This fact has already been admitted by her. In her statement as AW-1, she has stated that from the year 2000 to 2004, she had gone only for two or three days to the respondent. In cross-examination, she has stated that because she has been serving In "Anaganwadi", she went only once to the house of respondent Ratanlal. A notice dated 21.6.2002 Ex.D-1 through counsel was served on the petitioner requiring her to remain at matrimonial home. A Panchayat was also convened and in the Panchayat, she declined to remain at matrimonial home and according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the alleged "Nata Marriage" though not proved but it was the petitioner, who admitted that from the year 2000 to 2004, she went only for two or three days to the respondent and, thereafter deserted much prior to the date of alleged "Nata Marriage" to her husband respondent i.e. in the year 2004. Document Ex.D-2 was duly signed by various persons of the community stating therein that the parents of the petitioner and her matrimonial uncle declined to send the petitioner to respondent. The trial Court has considered all the material oral and documentary evidence produced on record in right perspective. Document Ex.D-2 was duly signed by various persons of the community stating therein that the parents of the petitioner and her matrimonial uncle declined to send the petitioner to respondent. The trial Court has considered all the material oral and documentary evidence produced on record in right perspective. On the revision, the revisional Court did not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Thus, the finding arrived at by both the Courts below is based on concurrent finding of facts and cannot be said to suffer any error or illegality warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction. It is settled law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in rarest of rare cases. The case in hand is not of that nature. In this view of the matter. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned.The petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******