JUDGMENT
R.K. Nehru, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24-8-93 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat allowing maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the respondent.
1. The petitioner husband (hereinafter the husband) was married to respondent No. 1 (hereinafter the wife) on July 4, 1971. Out of the wedlock, a son and a daughter were born who were aged 8 and 7 years respectively, on the day, when the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. The husband filed petitions for dissolution of marriage, divorce and for the custody of the minor children. These petitions were dismissed. Thereafter the wife filed a petition for maintenance on the ground that she had been deserted by her husband and she had no independent source of livelihood and she could not maintain herself and her minor children. She also stated that she was willing to return to the matrimonial home but the husband had refused to rehabilitate her.
2. The husband controverted the pleas of the wife and inter alia pleaded that the wife had been dis-respectful to him and his parents. He did not accept the offer of the wife that she was willing to live with him. The husband did not lead any evidence.
3. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence led by the wife came to the conclusion that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife without sufficient cause. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Trial Court relied upon the sworn testimony of the wife, her father and that of an independent witness. It also took into consideration the judgment rendered by the Court whereby the petitions filed by the husband against the wife for dissolution of marriage and divorce were dismissed. The husband’s unsuccessful attempt for the custody of minor children was also taken note of.
4. The attempts of the husband for the dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce are strong indicators that the husband does not want to rehabilitate the wife in the matrimonial home. He has deserted her without any justifiable cause. The filing of these petitions are proof of the fact that the husband wanted to get rid of the wife. He did not succeed in his attempts. The Court did not find that matrimonial offence alleged by him had an iota of truth.
5. The husband is a bank employee. The Trial Court has allowed Rs. 400/- as monthly maintenance allowance to the wife and Rs. 250/- to each of the minor children. The maintenance allowance awarded by the Trial Magistrate is on lower side. In the absence of any petition on behalf of the wife and her minor children, I am unable to interference with the order of the learned Trial Magistrate on the quantum of maintenance allowance allowed by it to the respondent. ‘
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Trial Magistrate was in error in allowing the maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application. Learned Trial Magistrate has given sound reasoning that the decision on the application could not be given promptly for various factors for which the wife is not responsible. The reasons given by the learned Trial Magistrate are unexceptional.
7. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.