JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.6.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Dausa (for short 'the trial court') whereby he dismissed the application for custody of the wife of petitioner Smt. Neetu Kanwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that parents of the girl lodged an FIR No. 328/2007, against the petitioner for the offence under sections 363, 366 IPC. During investigation section 376 IPC was added. 3. The trial court took cognizance in the matter. 4. The petitioner who is legal guardian of the girl after marriage filed an application for the custody of Neetu Kanwar in the trial court. 5. The trial court after hearing rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 17.6.2008. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 17.6.2008 passed by the trial court has preferred instant revision. 7. I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 8. Mr. Bipin Gupta, counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has passed the order impugned without considering the facts of the case. The trial court has also not considered the averments made by the petitioner in the application submitted before him. Thus, order impugned be quashed and set-aside. 9. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP assisted by Mr. Ravi Chirania, counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned. 10. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and material made available to me it is clear that the trial 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 order. 11. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Dismissed. *******