JUDGMENT : A.P. Ravani, J. The petitioners are original applicants. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of opponent No. 1 herein and petitioner No. 2 is the child born out of the wedlock between petitioner No. 1 and opponent No. 1. The petitioners filed an application for maintenance against the opponent. It was inter alia alleged that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and the opponent No. 1 took place sometime before three years from the date of filing of the application. The application for maintenance was filed in the month of December, 1982. It was alleged that the petitioner-wife was deserted by the opponent-husband and that she was ill-treated. That opponent-husband was not taking care of the petitioner and the minor son, Therefore, she filed application claiming maintenance for herself and for minor child. Before the trial court, the opponent-husband appeared and resisted the application on facts as well as on law points. Both the sides led evidence. The trial court, on overall appreciation of evidence, and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 2-minor son was also required to be paid maintenance by the opponent-father. The trial court therefore directed that the opponent-husband should pay an amount of Rs. 145/- per month to the petitioner No. 1 wife as and by way of maintenance and Rs. 90/- per month to the minor son Allaudin as and by way of maintenance. 2. Against the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court, the opponent-husband preferred revision application before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision application, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife had no reason to stay separate and therefore, allowed the revision application partially and set aside the order of maintenance passed by the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also reduced the amount of maintenance granted in respect of minor son Allauddin and directed that instead of Rs. 90/- per month, Rs. 50/- per month be paid to the minor Allauddin as and by way of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, the petitioner-wife his prefer red the present revision application. 3. 90/- per month, Rs. 50/- per month be paid to the minor Allauddin as and by way of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, the petitioner-wife his prefer red the present revision application. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thought, that the opponent- husband was ready to keep the petitioner-wife with him and after delivery of the child she was also taken at his house and it was on account of the insistence of the petitioner wife that they should stay separate, the petitioner was not willing to stay together. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the insistence by the petitioner that the opponent should give surety for good behaviour was also not called for. On these grounds, the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought that the petitioner-wife was not entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance. 4. Be it noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was deciding a revision application. The scope of revision application is very limited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not shown in his judgment that the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court was so unreasonable that no prudent man would have come to that conclusion. I have also looked at the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and it cannot he said that the reasoning given and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are perverse or highly unreasonable. Even if the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought that another view was possible, it was not open to him to interfere with the trial Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. It is not pointed out by the counsel for the opponent-husband that there were sufficient grounds for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, it has got to be held that the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the petitioner-wife was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance. Hence the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application of the petitioner-wife and reducing the amount of maintenance awarded to the minor son is required to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is required to be restored. 5. In the result, the criminal revision application is allowed. Hence the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application of the petitioner-wife and reducing the amount of maintenance awarded to the minor son is required to be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is required to be restored. 5. In the result, the criminal revision application is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Criminal Revision Application No. 104/83 is quashed and set aside and the Judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, Mangrol, in Crl. Misc. Application No. 92/82 is restored. Rule made absolute accordingly. Appeal allowed.