ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the order dated 30.12.2020 passed in Crl. Rev. Petn. No.171/2019 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru (for short ‘Revisional Court’). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondents herein have filed a Criminal Misc. No.105/2014 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Kadur, (for short ‘trial Court’) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the petitioner herein to pay Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to her and Rs.5,000/- to her son. Both the parties appeared and contested the matter. The trial Court after recording the evidence and considering the material available on record, had dismissed the petition. Hence, a criminal revision petition came to be filed by the respondents herein before the Revisional Court in Crl. R.P. No.171/2019. The Revisional Court allowed the petition in part and set aside the order passed by the trial Court and awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-per month to the 1st respondent till her life-time from the date of petition filed before the trial Court. The Revisional Court rejected the prayer in respect of the 2nd respondent on the ground that now the 1st respondent is taking care of 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Court, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 1st respondent herein is working as LIC agent and she is getting commission. He brought to the notice of this Court that, though the Revisional Court discussed the same in Para No.11 of the order, it committed an error in awarding Rs.4,000/-per month to the 1st respondent. The Revisional Court has made an observation that it is not the case of the petitioner herein that he is not having any agricultural lands or he has not capacity to earn and hence, granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/-per month to the 1st respondent. Though he is having agricultural land he is not having any income from the agricultural land and the Revisional Court has failed to take note of the material placed on record while reversing the order of the trial Court. Hence, it requires interference by this Court. 4. Though he is having agricultural land he is not having any income from the agricultural land and the Revisional Court has failed to take note of the material placed on record while reversing the order of the trial Court. Hence, it requires interference by this Court. 4. Having herd the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned counsel for respondents and on perusal of the order of the trial Court, the trial Court in Para No.12 of its judgment has observed that respondent No.1 being the LIC agent has obtained commission of Rs.1,53,921/- in the year 2012-2013 and Rs.1,09,575/- in the year 2014-15, likewise in the year 2015 the respondent obtained commission of Rs.46,335/-. The trial Court also observed that though the petitioner is owning land, in the evidence he has deposed that due to drought condition he has not paid rent to the house where respondents are residing. Taking note of the same the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondents are not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner herein. The same was questioned before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court taking note of the material in Para No.11 has come to the conclusion that after 2011-2015 no document is produced before the trial Court that the respondents are having income and getting commission and awarding maintenance for respondent No1. 5. Having perused the order of the Revisional Court and reasoning assigned in Para Nos.11 to 14, I do not find any error committed by the Revisional Court in reversing the findings of the trial Court and the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the income of the LIC agents depends upon the number of the policies. After showing income upto the year 2015, no documents were produced to show the income for the subsequent years either by the respondents or by the petitioner. Therefore, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 is having income is not substantiated by producing proof of income. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. The trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that though the petitioner is having agricultural land, due to drought he has no income. The reasoning assigned by the trial Court is erroneous. The trial Court ought not to have rejected the maintenance. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. The trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that though the petitioner is having agricultural land, due to drought he has no income. The reasoning assigned by the trial Court is erroneous. The trial Court ought not to have rejected the maintenance. There must be some substantive material before the Court to deny the maintenance to wife. The same has been rightly considered by the Revisional Court and has given reason for awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/-per month to respondent No.1 – wife of the petitioner. Such being the case and taking note of the maintenance awarded by the Revisional Court at R.4,000/-per month to respondent No.1 by taking note of cost of living at present, I do not find any merit to set aside the order or modify the order passed by the Revisional Court. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following : ORDER Petition is rejected.