JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgments dated 10.07.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the appellate Court') in criminal misc. appeal No. 57/2007 as also the Judgment dated 04.06.2007 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 09.12.2004 as per Hindu Rites. Both resided as husband and wife at Bikaner where family members of petitioner reside. Out of this wedlock a female child was born on 25.10.2005. The respondent is by profession an Advocate. 3. On 15.12.2006 the respondent filed a complaint under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner after hearing rejected the interim relief of the respondent but at the same time directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to respondent as maintenance vide order dated 06.06.2007. The respondent also moved an application on 03.01.2007 for return of his complaint to Jaipur Court, but same was also rejected on 03.01.2007 itself. 5. The respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 03.01.2007 preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The petitioner also preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and vide order dated 10.07.2007 it was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to get As. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 4,000/-. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10.07.2007 passed by the appellate court, the petitioner has preferred instant petition before this Court. 7. I have heard counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 8. Mr. B.S. Sinsinwar, counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts have committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned judgments. Both the courts below have not gone through the entire material available on record as the petitioner is working in Prahlad & Company in which he is getting As. 3,000/- p.m. and the appellate court directed the petitioner to make payment of As. 3,000/- p.m. to the respondent which is too excessive. Both the courts below have not gone through the entire material available on record as the petitioner is working in Prahlad & Company in which he is getting As. 3,000/- p.m. and the appellate court directed the petitioner to make payment of As. 3,000/- p.m. to the respondent which is too excessive. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, assisted by Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the courts below have not committed any illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned judgments. 10. From the bare perusal of the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, it is clear that the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the courts below in passing the same. 11. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. Stay 12. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******