JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by Family Court S.No. 1, Jaipur in regular case No. 142/2003, by which he directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 750/- to respondent No. 2 and As. 750/- to respondent No. 3 as maintenance from 28.11.2007 and rejected the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with respondent No. 1 as per Islamic rituals and Shariat. During the marital bond and during the marital life respondent begot three children, one of them died after illness and two daughters are alive namely Shehnaz and Yasmin. 3. After four years petitioner respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any reason along-with both the daughters. Petitioner tried hard to take the respondents but with no result. Ultimately the petitioner filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Sikar (for short 'the trial Court'). 4. Trial Court after hearing directed the respondent No. 1 to live with the petitioner in marital tie but the respondent did not comply with the order dated 03.11.06. 5. The respondent No. 1 filed an application u/s. 125 Cr.PC. before the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur seeking maintenance for herself and respondents No. 2 and 3 narrating detailed facts therein. 6. The Family Court after hearing vide order dated 28.11.2007 rejected the claim of respondent No. 1 but fastened the responsibility of maintenance of respondents No. 2 and 3 upon petitioner as Rs. 750/- for each i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 28.11.2007 has preferred instant revision before this Court. 8. Mr. S. Ansari, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence in regard to income of the petitioner. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights is decreed against the respondent No. 1 and she has been ordered to restitute the marital tie. Still the petitioner is ready to keep and maintain respondents No. 2 and 3. Petitioner also filed a declaratory petition under section 10 of the Guardians & Wards Act to take the custody of the respondents daughters. Still the petitioner is ready to keep and maintain respondents No. 2 and 3. Petitioner also filed a declaratory petition under section 10 of the Guardians & Wards Act to take the custody of the respondents daughters. Thus, the Family Court has committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the order impugned. 9. Mr. V.V. Harit, counsel appearing for the respondents controverted the afore-mentioned submissions and submitted that the Family Court has rightly passed the order impugned. 10. I have heard counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 11. From the entire material available on record it is clear that the Family Court has rightly awarded the maintenance amount to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and it has rightly rejected the application of respondent No. 1 moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, it has not committed any illegality and irregularity in passing the order impugned. 12. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Dismissed. *******