JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397 and 401 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in Petition No. 227/2010, whereby application filed by the respondent no. 1 under section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance has been allowed against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that admittedly the the marriage between the parties has been solemnized on 28.6.1974. From last one decade, parties are living separately in same house. The respondent no. 1 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. The court below granted Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no. 1. Hence this revision. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that respondent is able to maintain herself as she is having rental income of Rs. 6,400/- per month. She is also running shop from which she is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is admitted case of the parties that they are living separately from last couple of years and the respondent no. 1 is able to maintain herself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the contention of the respondent no. 1 is that it is true that she has rental income but in her children marriage she took loan and out of rental income she is paying loans and the interest and nothing remains for her maintenance out of this income,whereas the petitioner is getting pension of Rs. 16,000/- per month. The order of court below is justified and no interference is needed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the record of the case. 6. It is not in dispute that marriage of the parties has taken place on 28.6.1974 and from last couple of years, parties are residing separately. The respondent no. 1 has stated in her examination in chief before the court below that she is having rental income and it was alleged by the petitioner in his written statement, that she is having rental income Rs. 6400 per month. It has not been denied by the respondent no. 1. At the same time, the petitioner has stated that she is also running a shop. This fact also has not been denied by the respondent no. 6400 per month. It has not been denied by the respondent no. 1. At the same time, the petitioner has stated that she is also running a shop. This fact also has not been denied by the respondent no. 1 and further the civil suit was filed by the respondent no. 1 along with the temporary injunction application the copy of which has been placed on record by the present petitioner wherein the respondent no. 1 herself has stated that half portion of the house has been rented by her and she is receiving the rent and furthermore she has also stated in the application for temporary injunction that she is also running a shop. When the respondent no. 1 is having rental income and also running a shop she cannot be treated to be a person unable to maintain herself and the order of the court below is liable to be quashed. Petitioner has relied on Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder, Criminal Appeal No. 1059/2003 decided on 26.8.2003 of the Apex Court wherein general principles regarding grant of maintenance has been explained. The respondent no. 1 has relied upon 2004(4) WLC (SC) Criminal page 131, Maa Durga Shikshan Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan and ors and 2008 (1)WLC (SC), Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , 2004(4) WLC(R) 81, Smt. Gyarsi and Anr v. Ramkaran , wherein principle regarding provision of section 125 Cr.P.C has been stated. There is no dispute about it, also cited supra deals with the specific facts of the case. 7. Here in the present case, it can safely infer as indicated above that the respondent no. 1 is earning from the shop and she is also having rental income. Hence, she is able to maintain herself and also maintaining herself from last couple of years. The order impugned is liable to be set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.9.2012 is set aside.Revision allowed. *******