JUDGMENT 1. - This Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC is directed against the order dated 16th August 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Cr. Appeal No.85/2010, Vijay Shankar v. Smt Kamlesh and another , whereby appeal of the petitioner-husband was dismissed being barred by limitation and order dated 20.03.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Case No.376/2008 was maintained, whereby petitioner-husband was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent-wife with effect from the date of filing the application (27.07.2008) under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that respondent-wife preferred an application under section 12 of the Act of 2005 against petitioner-husband before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh on 26.07.2008, inter alia, averring that she is wife of the petitioner, the petitioner used to beat her after consuming liquor and treats her with cruelty and has now expelled her from his house. Previously also, on 25.7.2008 the Women Safety Center, Chittorgarh tried to reconcile the matter between her and petitioner-husband but the petitioner-husband demanded dowry and mocked her for not giving him a child. It was stated that the applicant-wife has to live in rented house and has to spend money for her medical treatment. It was submitted that petitioner-husband is partner in liquor-contract and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month and he has also rented out a godown to liquor-vendor, giving him income of Rs. 5000/- per month. With these averments, maintenance was prayed. 3. In reply, the petitioner-husband contended that the applicant-wife at her own residing with her father since 2003, he did not ever beat her, nor demanded dowry nor he works at liquor shop. The applicant-wife wants to contract another 'nata' marriage and with this motive, he has filed present application. 4. The applicant-wife adduced evidence in support of his application. The petitioner-husband failed to appear before the court and hence, ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. 5. After considering the averments and the evidence adduced on behalf of applicant-wife, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted her application under section 12 of the Act of 2005 and ordered the petitioner-husband to make payment of maintenance allowance to the applicant-wife at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month, from the date of filing of the application. 6. 5. After considering the averments and the evidence adduced on behalf of applicant-wife, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted her application under section 12 of the Act of 2005 and ordered the petitioner-husband to make payment of maintenance allowance to the applicant-wife at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month, from the date of filing of the application. 6. Aggrieved by grant of maintenance, the petitioner husband preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge. which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.08.2010, being barred by limitation. 7. Learned counsel for the present petitioner mainly submitted that learned appellate court wrongly dismissed the appeal only on the point of limitation and did not consider merit of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of learned court below and submitted that the petitioner-husband wants to avoid his obligation and liability despite order passed by learned court below. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders impugned. It is obvious that it is responsibility of the petitioner-husband to look after and maintain respondent wife. In this context, I am rather strengthened in my view by law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi and anr v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, 2008 Cr.LR. (SC) 686 , wherein by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the point of right of the wife to claim maintenance and laid down in the following terms: "...maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. ........... It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of 'special reasons' though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him." 10. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the order impugned, warranting any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 11. In the result, present Revision Petition fails, having no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The Stay Petition also accordingly stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******