JUDGMENT : R. V. Raveendran, J. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1995. Learned Magistrate after considering the matter allowed the petition by order dated 1.12.2000 and awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. The respondent-husband filed a revision challenging the award of maintenance which was rejected by the Sessions Court on 6.9.2002. 3. The respondent-husband challenged the order of the Sessions Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court by its order dated 19.6.2007 allowed the petition and set aside the orders of the Learned Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The High Court held that there was an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant on 15.12.1988 and that in spite of the said decree the appellant-wife had not cared to join her husband, even though the respondent-husband had expressed his willingness to take her back. The High Court therefore held that grant of maintenance was not warranted. The said order is under challenge. 4. The learned Magistrate had recorded the clear finding after appreciating the evidence that the husband was not interested to take back his wife, and that only to avoid maintenance, he had initiated a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights and secured an ex parte decree. The said finding has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code ought not to have interfered with the said finding. (See : Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, 1999(6) SCC 326 ). 5. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Magistrate affirmed by the Sessions Court.