JUDGMENT H.R. Panwar, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the non-petitioners at the rate of Rs. 1500/-.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in which the parties have compromised the matter and therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that the matter has been finally settled . and failed to appear on the notice of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. though the notice was personally served on the petitioner and in these circumstances, the trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and allowed the maintenance as noticed above.4. From the perusal of the order impugned, in my view, any decision on the compromise in a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be said to be a ground to deny monthly allowance of maintenance to the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 who are wife and son of the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that non-petitioner No. 1 is his legally wedded wife and the non-petitioner No. 2 is son born out of the wedlock. On an application filed by the non-petitioners seeking monthly allowance of maintenance on the ground that the petitioner being the husband and father of the non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, failed to maintain them despite having sufficient means and neglected them. The notice of the said application was sent to the petitioner. Indisputably, the notice has been received by the petitioner personally. Despite service of notice personally, the petitioner failed to contest the application filed by the non-petitioners and therefore, the trial Court proceeded ex-parte and recorded the statement of the non- petitioner Smt. Savita as AW-1. In her statement, she stated that she married to the petitioner and thereafter from the wedlock she gave birth to a child non-petitioner No. 2 who is of one year. She stated that her husband used to assault her after consuming liquor. In her statement, she stated that she married to the petitioner and thereafter from the wedlock she gave birth to a child non-petitioner No. 2 who is of one year. She stated that her husband used to assault her after consuming liquor. She was subjected to cruelty by her husband, parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law etc. and ultimately she was turned out of matrimonial home in connection with the demand of dowry. She stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself and her son. From her statement, the income of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has turned out the non-petitioners from the matrimonial home and failed to maintain them despite sufficient means and neglected them have been established.5. In this view of the matter, in my view, the trial Court was justified in proceeding ex-parte and passing the order impugned granting monthly allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- to maintain the non-petitioner No. 1 wife and non-petitioner No. 2 son. I do not find any error in the order impugned warranting interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The criminal misc. petition is therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******