Honble DALELA, J. – This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.6.93 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 80/92 on the application dated 18.3.93 of the petitioner No.1 for interim maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for herself and her minor children including the petitioner No.2. The learned Judge, Family Court, while rejecting the plea of maintenance of petitioner No.1 for herself, directed the respondent to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 250/- p.m. each for three minor children Mohd. Jabid, Shabana and Shabbo and declined to award interim maintenance for the remaining two children namely Femida and Dhagalia (petitioner No.2). Aggrieved by the refusal of interim maintenance to the petitioners this revision petition has been preferred. (2). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the record of the learned lower court. None appeared for the respondent. (3). Kumari Femida is admittedly residing with the respondent and he is maintaining her. As such, the learned Judge, Family Court, has rightly declined to award the interim maintenance for Kumari Femida. (4). Learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated before me at bar that he does not press the revision petition so far as the claim of interim maintenance for petitioner No.1 is concerned and has only pressed and argued in respect of the claim of petitioner No.2 only. (5). Petitioner No. 2 Dhagalia alias Abid is admittedly minor son of the respondent and is residing with his mother Smt. Husna Bano, petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of respondent. A perusal of the application moved by the petitioner No. 1 before the learned Judge, Family Court, would clearly show that she claimed the interim maintenance for her four children including the petitioner No. 2. The learned lower Court is, therefore, incorrect in observing in the impugned order that the petitioner No.1 has claimed the interim maintenance for her three children only. There is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner No.2 is residing with petitioner No.1, who is required to maintain him. There is nothing in the averments and affidavits of the respondent to indicate that petitioner No.2 is not residing with petitioner No.1 or that only three children are residing with her. There is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner No.2 is residing with petitioner No.1, who is required to maintain him. There is nothing in the averments and affidavits of the respondent to indicate that petitioner No.2 is not residing with petitioner No.1 or that only three children are residing with her. Therefore, from the evidence of both the sides, it is sufficiently established that four children including petitioner No.2, are residing with petitioner No.1 and she is required to maintain them. Thus, the learned lower court is incorrect, when it states that only three children are residing with petitioner No.1 and the respondent is liable to maintain them including the petitioner No.2 by virtue of being their father. In my opinion, the learned lower court was not justified in declining the interim maintenance to petitioner No.2. (6). In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the respon dent is directed to pay to the petitioner No.1 the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. for maintenance of petitioner No.2 in addition to the interim maintenance payable under the orders of the learned lower court. The order of the learned lower court shall stand modified to the above extent.