ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short “the Code”] has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2015 passed by ASJ, Dharampuri, District Dhar in Criminal Revision No.245/2014, whereby partly allowed the revision and directed the applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to non-applicant No.1; whereas affirmed the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by JMFC in Criminal Case No.26/2011 to pay maintenance to non-applicants No.2 to 7 at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to each. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized about 14 years back and out of their wedlock 4 daughters and 2 sons, who are non-applicants No.2 to 7, were born, who are now minor. The non-applicant No.1 along with her children (non-applicants No.2 to 7) are residing with her parents house due to harassment given by the applicant and applicant has contracted second marriage with one Foolabai. The non-applicants have filed the application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code. The learned Magistrate after inquiry allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.800/- per month to non-applicants No.2 to 7. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant has preferred the revision. The revisional Court considering the evidence on record, reduced the amount of maintenance of non-applicant No.1 from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month; whereas affirmed the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to non-applicants No.2 to 7. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's father is agriculturist and he assist him in agricultural operations. He has no his own income. He is not in a capacity to pay maintenance as awarded by the Courts below. Therefore, the total amount of maintenance granted by the Courts below be reduced up to Rs.5,000/- which he is ready to pay. Thus, the order be modified. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants vehemently opposes the prayer. She submits that the learned Magistrate in para 11 of its order gave a clear finding that the applicant is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Courts below is not on higher side. Thus, the order be modified. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants vehemently opposes the prayer. She submits that the learned Magistrate in para 11 of its order gave a clear finding that the applicant is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Courts below is not on higher side. She further submits that there is a concurrent finding of Courts below, therefore, there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 6. Learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence on record gave a finding that the applicant has agricultural income about Rs.1,50,000/- per year and besides this he earns Rs.15,000/- per month from the commission as LIC Agent. Thus, he earns about Rs.30,000/- per month. On this finding learned Magistrate has fixed the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month for non-applicant No.1 and Rs.800/- per month for non-applicants No.2 to 7. However, revisional Court had reduced the amount of non-applicant No.1 from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month; whereas affirmed the order of maintenance granted by the Magistrate i.e. at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to each non-applicants No.2 to 7. I am of the view that there is no perversity or mis-carriage of justice in awarding the maintenance. Otherwise also this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code cannot reassess the evidence on record. 7. With the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.