JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions have been preferred by the present petitioner Shiv Raj Singh , s/o Jasvinder Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, r/o 11 G Harnia, Police Station Chunawad, District Sriganganagar, against the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009 ,whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the present respondents and set aside the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pilibanga in criminal case No.13/2007 and 89/2007, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the present respondents under section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the present petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the present respondent Balvinder Kaur and Rs. 1500/- per month, to present respondent Sukhmal, from the date of application. 2. Hereinafter Shivraj Singh shall be termed as petitioner and Balvinder Kaur and Sukhpal shall be termed as respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petitions are that the present respondents filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner stating that the petitioner is a well to do man and he is a Compounder , he is also having 13 bighas of agricultural land and his monthly income is Rs. 8,000/- as such the respondents may be awarded Rs. 2000/- each , as maintenance allowance. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner, in reply to which he averred that the respondent Sukhmal is not his daughter and the daughter who was born to him and Balvinder Kaur, is residing with him, and he is taking care of her. It was further stated that a case under section 307 IPC is pending against Balvinder Kaur. In support of the application statement of AW/1 Balvinder Kaur and AW/2 Sukhdeo Singh were recorded and in respect of petitioner the statement of NAW/1 Shivraj Singh and NAW/2 Jasvinder Singh were recorded. After conclusion of the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pilibangha by his order dated 01.04.2009, rejected the application filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2009 the respondents filed criminal revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, vide his order dated 07.01.2010 allowed the revisions and ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to respondent Balvinder Kaur and Rs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2009 the respondents filed criminal revisions before the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, vide his order dated 07.01.2010 allowed the revisions and ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to respondent Balvinder Kaur and Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent Sukhmal , from the date of filing of application. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 07.01.2010 suffers from illegality, impropriety and perversity because the learned Sessions Judge in Cri.revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009, instead of remanding the case back to the trial court for determining the amount of maintenance, he himself appreciated the evidence and awarded the maintenance to Balvinder Kaur as well as her two year old daughter Sukhmal, whereas the revisional court could not have passed such order . Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount so awarded, is on higher side, and is not based upon the evidence produced by both the parties. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 07.01.2010, may be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per the provisions of section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court has the same jurisdiction as that of the trial court and, therefore, it was not necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to remand the case back to the trial court for awarding the amount of maintenance. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the following judgments: 1. Anjani Kumar Dhand v. Smt. Vandana Devi, 2009 (3) CJ (Cr.) (Raj.)1150 and 2. Jagannath v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 709 8. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the facts of the above authorities, are different to that of the case in hand. In Anjani Kumar Dhand's case (supra) the order of the revisional court was set aside on the ground that while remanding the case back to the trial court, the revisional court imposed a condition to pay the interim maintenance and that condition being illegal and contrary to law, was set aside. 9. In Anjani Kumar Dhand's case (supra) the order of the revisional court was set aside on the ground that while remanding the case back to the trial court, the revisional court imposed a condition to pay the interim maintenance and that condition being illegal and contrary to law, was set aside. 9. Jagannath's case (supra), it was a case of revision against the order of taking cognizance and this Court held that no such power vested in the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, to have taken the cognizance, in the revision filed under section 497 Cr.P.C. 10. Learned counsel for the present respondents relied on the following judgment in support of his case : 1. Syonarayan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (2) RLW 1239 (Raj.) , and 2. Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675 . 11. I have perused the record of the trial court and the evidence adduced by both the parties in the trial court. 12. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pilibanga, vide order dated 01.04.09 in the application for maintenance of Sukhmal d/o Shivraj Singh held that Balvinder Kaur could not prove this fact that on which date she left her in-laws house, therefore, the fact that Sukhmal was his daughter born out of the wedlock of Shivraj Singh and Balvinder Kaur cannot be said to be proved and thereby refused to award any maintenance allowance. Similar appreciation was made by the learned trial court in the application filed by Balvinder Kaur. 13. The learned revisional court, while allowing the revision, held that Sukhmal was the child born out of the legal wedlock of Shivraj Singh and Balvinder Kaur and further appreciated that Shivraj Singh wilfully neglected to maintain his wife Balvinder Kaur and daughter Sukhmal. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2000/- to Balvinder Kaur and Rs. 1500/- to Sukhmal. 14. I have perused the judgment cited by both the parties. 15. The facts of the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different to that of the present case. Under section 497 Cr.P.C. the revisional court has all the powers of the original trial court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh erred in allowing the maintenance allowance to Balvinder Kaur and Sukhmal. 16. Under section 497 Cr.P.C. the revisional court has all the powers of the original trial court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh erred in allowing the maintenance allowance to Balvinder Kaur and Sukhmal. 16. The fact of marriage of petitioner with Balvinder Kaur is not in dispute, the only question remains is that whether Sukhmal is the child born out of the legal wedlock between petitioner and respondent Balvinder Kaur. From the evidence of both the parties, it is well established that Balvinder Kaur started to remain separate by leaving the house of petitioner in the month of July, and Sukhmal was born in the month of July. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that Sukhmal is not the child born out of the legal wedlock of petitioner and respondent Balvinder. 17. The findings of learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh are based on evidence and cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. 18. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, looking to the fact that cost of living is getting more higher in a rapid manner and the amount awarded as maintenance is proportionate to the income of the petitioner. Therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned revisional court cannot be said to be awarding the maintenance on higher side or excessive. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh allowed the maintenance allowance w.e.f. 17.04.2007, i.e. from the date of filing of the original application in the trial court. That is not in accordance with law. 20. I have pondered over this argument also. 21. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that Shivraj Singh himself wilfully neglected to maintain his wife and daughter, therefore, the order of granting maintenance w.e.f. 17.04.2007 i.e. the date from which Shivraj Singh refused to maintain his wife and daughter, cannot be said to be illegal improper or perverse. 22. Accordingly, both the revisions petitions are dismissed and the impugned orders of learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh passed in Criminal Revision No.64/2009 and 66/2009 are maintained.Revision dismissed. *******