1. Heard Mr. P. N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajesh S. Lalotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this criminal revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated February 27, 2006, passed by learned City Judge (Judicial Magistrate Ist Class) Jammu (for short, `the learned Magistrate’) in File no. 70/Miscellaneous, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 1000/- each to all the three respondents, i.e., respondent no.1, who is the wife of the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the daughter and son respectively of the petitioner. 3. The respondent no.1, being the wife of the petitioner along with her daughter and son, i.e., respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively, initiated the instant proceeding for grant of maintenance under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (for short, `Cr.P.C’), alleging that from the very inception of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, petitioner herein started maltreating her, and his attitude was also cruel towards her. Other family members of petitioner were also cruel toward her. From their wedlock, she bore two children to the petitioner, the daughter-respondent no.2 and the son-respondent no.3. Eventually, in 1990, respondent no.1 was turned out by the petitioner from his house. Since the respondent no.1 failed to maintain herself and her two children, she having no option or alternative, was compelled to approach this Court for maintenance. Be it mentioned herein that marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rituals and customs. 4. In such proceeding before the learned Magistrate, both the parties adduced their evidence. Respondents examined as many as three witnesses including respondent no. 1 while petitioner examined three witnesses including him. 5. Learned Magistrate having considered the entire factual situation and on proper appreciation and consideration of the testimony of the witnesses came to the finding that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance to the wife-respondent no.1 and his two children-respondent nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the said petition was allowed with a direction to pay Rs. 1000/- each to the three respondents, i.e., wife, daughter and son, respectively. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and also carefully perused the judgment. 7. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the said petition was allowed with a direction to pay Rs. 1000/- each to the three respondents, i.e., wife, daughter and son, respectively. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and also carefully perused the judgment. 7. The impugned judgment is found to be a well reasoned one, wherein evidence of all the witnesses so led by the parties was scrupulously scanned and appreciated and all the aspects of the matter were given due consideration by the learned Magistrate. 8. It is found that the petitioner failed to maintain his wife, daughter and son, i.e., respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and the said factum was reflected in the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate. 9. This Court does not find any cogent or plausible ground to dislodge the views expressed in the impugned judgment. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no irregularity and illegality in arriving at the decision to grant maintenance in question, nor is there any perversity in appreciation of the evidence so adduced by the parties. 11. That being the position, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. 12. Accordingly, this petition stand dismissed.