JUDGMENT/ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Though the matter (revision petition No. 192/2020) was listed before this Court in regard to service of respondent No. 2- wife, but the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband insisted that the matter may be heard finally at this stage, without service upon the respondent No. 2. 2. Ordinarily, the Court could not have accepted such a request, but on a perusal of the record as well as upon hearing the preliminary submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of service upon respondent No. 2 was not felt necessary, as on merits, the matter was tilting in favour of the respondent No. 2-wife. 3. As regards Misc. Petition No. 3559/2021, the previous order-sheets shows that Mr. D.K. Gaur, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2-wife. However, today on 23.05.2022, when the matter was listed, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. -2 wife, even in the second round. 4. The present criminal revision petition No. 192/2020 (initially filed as criminal misc. petition) and criminal misc. petition No. 3559/2021 have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: Revision Pet. No. 192/2020: It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the order impugned dated 11.12.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 259/2017 granting maintenance to the respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month may kindly be quashed and set aside" Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3559/2021: It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the proceedings pending before the Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 10/2020 (Mamta v. Ramchandra) including order dated 24.02.2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and in alternative the learned court below may kindly be directed not to arrest the petitioner till the petitioner's application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is decided." 5. As the record of the case would reveal, the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute, wherein the respondent No. 2-wife on count of the alleged ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of her husband (present petitioner) and her in-laws, in connection with the alleged demand of dowry, is living separately, and thus, by filing an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned court below, she had sought an appropriate and adequate amount of monthly maintenance; the same has been awarded by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019; against such determination of the monthly maintenance amount and the consequential order passed by the learned court below, owing to the default on the part of the petitioner-husband in payment of arrears of the maintenance amount, the petitioner-husband has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that even earlier an ex-parte order dated 27.04.2019 was passed in favour of the respondent No. 2-wife by the learned court below, on her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while granting her a monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-; against which the present petitioner-husband preferred a criminal misc. petition bearing No. 3876/2019, whereupon this Hon'ble Court, while quashing and setting aside the said ex-parte order of maintenance, remanded the matter back to the learned court below, for deciding the same afresh. 6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after remand of the matter, in a short span of time, the learned court below heard the matter finally and vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019, the learned court below increased the amount of monthly maintenance to be payable by the petitioner-husband to the respondent No. 2-wife, from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, which is on a much higher side, and thus, unreasonable, looking to the financial position of the petitioner-husband, and more particularly, in view of the established fact that the respondent No. 2-wife herself is earning an amount of Rs. 20,000/- through domestic stitching. 6.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent No. 2-wife is living separately of her own free will, and in fact, she has deserted the petitioner-husband, and therefore, she did not have any right to maintenance, as awarded by the learned court below. 6.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-husband is earning Rs. 6.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-husband is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, and thus, the very pedestal, on which the maintenance amount in question has been awarded, is wrong, as the claim pertaining thereto was not supported by placing any cogent evidence on record before the learned court below. 6.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent No. 2-wife has in fact deprived the petitioner-husband of his conjugal rights. 6.5. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the above, even the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 24.02.2021, which is under challenge before this Court in the above-numbered criminal misc. petition, has proceeded to order issuance of a standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner-husband; with the further stipulation that in the said warrant, a mention shall be made that in case the petitioner-husband pays the outstanding amount towards arrears of maintenance immediately, which is to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-, for the period from 06.04.2017 to 30.11.2019, he shall not be arrested in pursuance of the said warrant; however, upon his failure to do so, the said warrant of arrest shall be executed against him. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-husband as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned court below is perfectly justified, as the prolonged matrimonial dispute has resulted into the respondent No. 2-wife living separately; the learned court below has also recorded a conclusion that she was not having any definite and regular source of income. The evidence given by the respondent-wife was also not controverted, in cross-examination, by the petitioner-husband; the conjugal rights is altogether a different aspect, for which there has to be harmony between the couple; moreover, the petitioner-husband also could not substantially point out as to what efforts have been made by him so as to bring in such harmony, to support his claim pertaining to the conjugal rights, and thus, the same cannot impact the conclusion arrived at by the learned court below, regarding the determination of monthly maintenance to the respondent No. 2-wife, as done vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019. As regards the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 also, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has proceeded to pass such an order of penal consequence, only for an effective implementation of the order of grant of maintenance, as well as on count of failure on the part of the petitioner-husband in regard to payment of the outstanding amount towards arrears of monthly maintenance. This is more so when, the learned court below has clearly mentioned in the penal order dated 24.02.2021 that in case the petitioner-husband immediately makes the payment of the outstanding amount towards the arrears of maintenance amount, the standing warrant of arrest issued against him shall not be executed. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the factual as well as legal matrix considered by the learned court below while passing the impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 and 24.02.2021 does not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to call for any interference. 9. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.