JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.06.2008 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Baran (for short 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision petition No.81/2007, by which he modified the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mangrole in Criminal Misc. Appl. No. 497/2005 under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the non-petitioner stating therein that about 15 years ago, the petitioner No.1 married the non- petitioner in which her parents gave dowry beyond their capacity. In her sasural, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry and after the birth of the petitioner No.2, the harassment increased. After ten years ago, the petitioners were kicked out of the in-laws house and since then, they were residing with her parents. Certain other facts were also mentioned in the application. 3. The non-petitioner filed reply to the application admitting that in the year 1984 he married the petitioner No. 1 but rest of the contents were denied. Certain other facts were also mentioned in the reply. 4. The Judicial Magistrate after hearing partly allowed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 31.08.2007 and directed the non- petitioner to pay Rs. 1000/- each to the petitioners from the date of order. 5. The non-petitioner being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 31.08.2007 preferred a criminal revision before the revisional Court. The revisional court after hearing partly allowed the revision vide its impugned order dated 20.06.2008 whereby the amount of maintenance has been reduced from Rs. 1,000/- each to Rs. 700/- each. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 20.06.2008 passed by the revisional Court the petitioners have preferred instant criminal revision. 7. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional court has committed gross error in law and facts in failing to appreciate that it had a very limited jurisdiction to have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the court below under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code The revisional court did not appreciate that the petitioner No.2 was aged about 15 years and was student of Class-XII. In view of the high cost of education, these days even the amount of Rs. In view of the high cost of education, these days even the amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month granted by the court below was on lower side and as such the order of the revisional Court in further reducing the amount to Rs. 700/- per month cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The revisional court has wrongly recorded a positive finding that the income of the non-petitioner was Rs. 1200/- P.M. Thus, the revisional Court has committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the order impugned dated 20.06.2008. 8. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Ajay Singh counsel for the respondent submit that the revisional court has passed the order impugned after considering the material available on record and no interference is required to be made. 9. 1 have heard counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 10. From the bare perusal of the entire material available on record, it is clear that the revisional court has wrongly reduced the amount of maintenance and it has committed an illegality and irregularity in reducing the same. 11. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 20.06.2008 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Baran in criminal revision No.81/07 is quashed and set-aside and the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mangrole, District Baran in criminal Misc. Case No. 497/2005 is maintained. *******