Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THE instant cr. revision petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the order dt. 20.10.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in appeal No. 27/2014 whereby the said appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dt. 28.2.2014 in Cr. Case No. 298/2008 (Smt. Pushpa Devi & Ors. v. Shambhoo Prasad & Anr.) by which the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara allowed the application filed by the respondents under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005 for short) and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,500/ - for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/ - for respondent No. 2 minor daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that finding given by both the Courts below in granting maintenance of Rs. 6,500/ - to the wife and daughter are totally illegal because the petitioner -husband is working as driver in RSRTC and getting only Rs. 12,000/ - per month salary. So also, there are other family members to whom petitioner is required to maintain. Therefore, it is a case in which the maintenance granted by the learned trial Court is on higher side.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the order impugned may be quashed and appropriate order to reduce the maintenance may be passed. In spite of the service, none present on behalf of the respondents. I have perused the finding given by the learned trial Court in the order of maintenance to the wife and daughter of the petitioner so also, perused the pay slip annexed with the petition. Upon perusal of pay slip it is revealed that total salary of the petitioner is Rs. 24,354/ -, out of which there is deduction of Rs. 4,000/ - for RD Account of saving and there is disclosure of penalty of Rs. 2,265/ - which has already been deducted. Meaning thereby, the earning of the petitioner is more than Rs. 15,000/ -. Therefore, it cannot be said that order of maintenance passed in favour of the minor daughter and wife of the petitioner is illegal. More so, the learned trial Court has rightly passed an order for maintenance under the provisions of the Act of 2005. In view of the above facts, no interference is called for in this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.;