ORDER 1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 3.1.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Criminal Revision No.14/2013 by which order of Magistrate regarding grant of maintenance was modified and petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the respondents meaning thereby directed for payment of Rs.5,000/- per month in all. 2. On 25.8.2009 respondent Jummabai filed an application under section 125 CrPC in the Court of JMFC, Neemuch containing allegations that 15 years prior to the filing of application, her marriage took place with the petitioner. The couple was blessed with a son. Thereafter, husband made a quarrel with wife and subjected her to some assaults. In February, 2009 husband and his family members expelled the wife from matrimonial house. Later on she was taken back to matrimonial house and on 10.8.2009 husband again subjected the wife to ill-treatment and assault. In response, in the trial Court petitioner/husband submitted that wife is basically a greedy and arrogant person who made an attempt on the life of her own brother in greed of parental property and was confined to jail also. Wife is able to maintain herself out of her agricultural land in parental house. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence of Jummabai, wife (PW1) and Leelabai, her sister (PW2) and also appreciated the evidence of the petitioner (DW1) and vide order dated 2.1.2013 directed for payment of Rs.1,200/- per month as maintenance to child alone. The aforesaid order of the Magistrate was assailed by both the parties in revision and the revisional Court has directed for maintenance as above. 3. Present petition is preferred on the ground that revisional Court has unnecessarily interfered with the findings of the Magistrate without any sufficient ground and has misread the evidence. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings of the revisional Court. 4. On perusal of evidence of Jummabai (PW1), Leelabai (PW2) and Guddu @ Nandkishore (DW1) it becomes clear that wife lodged a report in Police against the petitioner/husband making allegations of assault. She has further admitted that she faced a trial under section 307 IPC for causing injury to her brother but it was ended in acquittal on the basis of compromise. In para-14 of her deposition, wife admitted that she and her sister are living together and are not living with their husbands. She has further admitted that she faced a trial under section 307 IPC for causing injury to her brother but it was ended in acquittal on the basis of compromise. In para-14 of her deposition, wife admitted that she and her sister are living together and are not living with their husbands. In para-15 she specifically said that she does not want to go and live with the husband irrespective of the fact that he is willing to keep her. The evidence of husband is clear on the point that though marriage took place about 34 years ago but for the last so many years wife is living away separately that too along with her sister. 5. Perusal of the aforesaid evidence and order of the Magistrate as well as order of the revisional Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, nothing wrong appears in grant of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2, son but grant of maintenance to wife to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per month requires reconsideration because sufficient evidence is available to show that it was the decision of the wife not to live with husband and wife is maintaining herself out of her own agricultural income and is living happily with her sister. Consequently, impugned order deserves to be modified as below. Petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2, son from the date of the application. The order granting maintenance to wife is hereby set aside. 6. Petition is allowed in part as indicated herein above. Satish Jain for petitioner; Virendra Khadav for respondents.