JUDGMENT 1. - Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.-By filing instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 17.11.2008 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Sati and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur (for short 'the Appellate Court') whereby he confirmed the order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, S.No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Trial Court') whereby he awarded interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 4,000 against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR No. 150/ 2007 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jaipur against the petitioner in which allegations regarding demand of dowry were made. 3. Respondent No. 1 also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005) praying therein to grant her interim maintenance. The Trial Court after hearing vide order dated 18.10.2008 directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 4,000 as interim maintenance to the respondent. 4. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Trial Court preferred an appeal in the Appellate Court. 5. The Appellate Court after hearing confirmed the order dated 18.10.2008 passed by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2008. 6. I have heard both the Counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 7. Mr. R.R. Balsala, Counsel for the petitioner is earning Rs. 35 per day. He submits that the petitioner is simply a salesman in his parental shop. Respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. 3,000 per month which is sufficient for maintaining herself. Lastly, he submits that the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is pending in the Court concerned. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below be quashed and set aside. 8. To support his case Mr. Balsala has placed reliance upon following judgments: (i) Chaturbhu v. Sita Bai, IX (2007 SLT 592:IV (2007) CCR 108 (SC):I (2007) DMC 22 (SC):2008 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 526. (ii) Bhim Raj Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) RCC 414. 9. Mr. J.R. Bijrania, P.P. assisted by Mr. Anil Upman, Counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts below have passed the orders impugned after considering all the material which was made available to him. Mr. 526. (ii) Bhim Raj Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) RCC 414. 9. Mr. J.R. Bijrania, P.P. assisted by Mr. Anil Upman, Counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts below have passed the orders impugned after considering all the material which was made available to him. Mr. Upman, submits that the petitioner is having a jewellery shop and he is earning a handsome amount from that shop. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 10. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case it is clear that both the Courts below have not committed an illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned judgments. The judgments cited by Mr. Baisala are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case. Thus, in my considered view, no interference is required in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 11. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously. Stay Order 12. In view of the order of main petition the stay application also stands rejected.C.R.P. dismissed. *******