JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.11.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Aklera District Jhalawar (for short 'the revisional Court') whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the applicant respondent and quashed and set-aside the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Aklera District Jhalawar (for short 'the trial court') and had further granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of applicant respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent submitted an application u/s 125 Cr.PC. against the petitioner praying therein to award her Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance amount. The petitioner filed reply to the application with certain averments. 3. On behalf of applicant four witnesses were examined and on behalf of non-applicant three witnesses were examined. 4. The trial Court after hearing dismissed the application vide order dated 21.7.2008. 5. The respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the trial court preferred a criminal revision in the revisional court. 6. The revisional court after hearing both the parties allowed the criminal revision and quashed the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 1.11.2008. 7. The petitioner aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2008 passed by the revisional court has preferred instant revision. 8. I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 9. Mr. S.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court has failed to consider the evidence available on record and erred In passing the impugned judgment. The trial court has rightly passed the order. The revisional court has also failed to consider that the respondent had already filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in which vide order dated 21.7.2005, wherein the respondent denied to live with the present petitioner. Thus, the court concerned passed a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the revisional court be quashed and set-aside. 10. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP assisted by Mr. S.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent submits that the appellate Court has rightly passed the order impugned. 11. Thus, the court concerned passed a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the revisional court be quashed and set-aside. 10. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP assisted by Mr. S.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent submits that the appellate Court has rightly passed the order impugned. 11. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and material made available to me it is clear that the revisional court has taken into consideration all the material which was made available to him and in my considered view no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment passed by the revisional court. 12. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. Stay Order 13. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******