JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of respondents despite service. 2. This revision petition under section 397/401 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 03rd July 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby the court below accepted application of the non-petitioners (wife and daughter) moved under section 125 CrPC and ordered the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 300/- per month respectively. 3. The concise facts of case are that marriage of petitioner with non-petitioner No.1- Indra Devi was solemnized on 15.5.2002 and out of their wedlock, a daughter non-petitioner No.2- Ms Gungun born. It is alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner-husband was beating her and sent her to paternal home even before birth of the child. After birth of the daughter, her father attempted to given understanding to the petitioner-husband to take her wife but he did not agree. 4. The non-petitioners (wife and daughter) preferred an application under section 125 CrPC before learned court below, inter alia, while averring aforesaid facts, it was submitted therein that the non-petitioner No.1-wife does not know any work, for about two years he has been residing with her father and nurturing her daughter with the help of her father. She made a notice to the petitioner-husband through her advocate but no reply has yet been received. The petitioner-husband earns Rs. 10,000/- per month out of employment and agriculture, therefore, maintenance for herself and her daughter was prayed. 5. The learned court below determined 4 points for consideration and held that - the non-petitioner No.1 legally wedded wife of petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 is their valid daughter, the non-petitioner-wife has no source of income for her livelihood and the petitioner earns Rs. 2000-3000 through labour. As regard point No.4, upon appreciating relevant evidence, learned court below found that the petitioner-husband contacted another marriage with some lady named Meena, who has since died and the non-petitioner-wife along with minor daughter is residing with her parents yet no money was given by petitioner to her wife. It was, thus, held that the petitioner-husband intentionally avoided his responsibility and liability of maintaining wife and the daughter. 6. It was, thus, held that the petitioner-husband intentionally avoided his responsibility and liability of maintaining wife and the daughter. 6. On the basis of aforesaid consideration, learned court below allowed the application of non-petitioners under section 125 CrPC and by the order dated 03rd July 2008 awarded maintenance to be paid by the petitioner per month, as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned court below erred in not appreciating income of the petitioner. It is also contended that the respondent wife is able to maintain herself and she is engaged in some work to support his livelihood. It is further contended that in the present case, the respondent wife opted to stay away from the petitioner-husband and the petitioner-husband has filed application for restitution of conjugal rights but the learned court below did not properly appreciate this position. 8. I have perused the impugned order and also scanned through the record of the court below available with the file. 9. Having thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis findings given by the learned court below while allowing application under section 125 CrPC filed by the non-petitioners, I found no error in the order of granting maintenance to the non-petitioners wife and daughter of the petitioner. 10. It is admitted position from the statement of petitioner and other evidence that while non-petitioner wife was at her parental home, the petitioner-husband contacted another marriage and during all that period, he did not pay her anything to support herself and their daughter; thereby, the petitioner deliberately avoided his responsibility & liability of maintaining her wife and child. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, present Revision Petition lacks merit. The order passed by the learned court below is just and does not require interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******