JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Criminal Revision No.18 of 2012, the petitioner-husband (respondent in the Court below) has filed this petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. It is seen that vide order under challenge, minor respondents No.2 and 3, have been awarded monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1750/- each. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is married to respondent No.1 according to Hindu rites and customs on 14.2.2003. On account of alleged maltreatment, he meted out to his wife-respondent No.1, she started living separately from him. The petitioner-husband allegedly neglected and refused to maintain her and also the minor children, respondents No.2 and 3. Since the petitioner-husband was allegedly working as a contractor and earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month, therefore, a sum of Rs. 2000/- each was sought to be awarded as monthly maintenance allowance against him. 3. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that since respondent No.1-wife has failed to show sufficient cause to live away from the company of the husband-petitioner, therefore, held her not entitled to the grant of maintenance allowance, however, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1750/- per month was granted in favour of each of minor respondents No.2 and 3. 4. Respondent-1-wife and also the petitioner-husband both assailed the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (I), Hamirpur in the Sessions Court in two separate revision petitions. While the respondent-wife was aggrieved from that part of the order whereby the maintenance allowance, as claimed by her was declined, the petitioner-husband felt aggrieved by the award of Rs. 1750/- each as maintenance allowance in favour of minor respondents No.2 and 3. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, vide impugned order, has dismissed both the revisions and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Since respondent No.1 has initially opted for not putting appearance after service of notice upon her, therefore, she was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. On behalf of the minor respondents No. 2 and 3, the Court Master was appointed as Court Guardian. However, fee of Rs. 3000/- has not yet been paid by the petitioner to the Court Guardian so appointed. 7. On behalf of the minor respondents No. 2 and 3, the Court Master was appointed as Court Guardian. However, fee of Rs. 3000/- has not yet been paid by the petitioner to the Court Guardian so appointed. 7. On analysing the rival submissions and having gone through the record of this case, when as per the admitted case of the parties, the minor respondents No.2 and 3 are born to them out of this wedlock; it is the responsibility of the petitioner-husband to maintain them. 8. The complaint that the amount, as awarded towards maintenance allowance is on higher side, is neither legally nor factually sustainable and rather in the considered opinion of this Court, the award of such allowance in the given facts and circumstances of this case, is justified and reasonable. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner-husband as Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the evidence available on record has not been properly appreciated. The perusal of the order under challenge rather reveals that both Courts below have appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective while arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner-husband, who is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month, is in a position to maintain respondents No.2 and 3, his minor children. 9. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent of award of Rs. 1750/- each per month to respondents No.2 and 3 is not only factually but also legally sustainable. No case for interference with the order so passed is made out. The petition, therefore, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 10. Before parting with this judgment, there shall be a direction to the petitioner-husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 3000/- in the Registry of this Court within six weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall initiate the proceedings in accordance with law to recover this amount and remit the same to the Registry of this court for further payment to the Court Guardian appointed vide order passed on 26.10.2015 in Cr. MP No.327/2014. The petition is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.