JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife No.1 and Rs. 750/- per month each to the respondent-children Nos.2 and 3 from 24.08.2007 till 31.05.2010. The learned Judge has also directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to respondent-children Nos.2 and 3 from 31.05.2010 onwards. 2. Mr. Vippin Makkad, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has vehemently contended that the respondent-wife No.1 is earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month by stitching cloths. Secondly, the petitioner husband does not earn more than Rs. 2,200/- per month. Therefore, he is not in a position to bear a total maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Thirdly, the respondent-wife No.1 is staying away from the petitioner husband without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should have been given to him. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anuj Sahlot, the learned counsel for the respondents, has strenuously contended that the petitioner-husband has not submitted any evidence to show that the respondent-wife No.1 is earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month by stitching cloths. Secondly, according to the petitioner-husband himself, he had loaned Rs. 50,000/- to his father-in-law, yet he claims that he is merely earning Rs. 2,200/- per month. Since he is in the business of wholesale medicines, his claim that he is earning merely Rs. 2,200/- per month is highly fallacious. Lastly, according to the respondent-wife No.1, she was constantly submitted to mental and physical cruelty. Therefore, she has a valid reason for staying away from the petitioner-husband. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. cannot be given to the petitioner-husband. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. The learned Judge has clearly noted that the petitioner-husband has not submitted any evidence to prove the fact that the respondent-wife No.1 was, indeed, earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. A distinction has to be made between making of an allegation and a proof thereof. Although the petitioner-husband has alleged that the respondent-wife No.1 was earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. A distinction has to be made between making of an allegation and a proof thereof. Although the petitioner-husband has alleged that the respondent-wife No.1 was earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, but he has not been able to prove this fact thorough cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the said plea. 6. The learned Judge has also noticed the fact that the petitioner-husband himself has claimed that he had loaned Rs. 50,000/- to the father-in-law. But simultaneously he would have the court believe that he is merely earning Rs. 2,200/- per month by running a wholesale business in medicines. The learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the statement with regard to the income seems to be a mis-statement of fact. 7. Although the petitioner-husband has tried to plead that the respondent-wife No.1 had deserted him, but the fact remains that according to the respondent-wife No.1 she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty throughout her married life. Thus, she has given cogent and sufficient reasons for staying away from the petitioner husband. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. cannot be given to him. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******