Honble YAMIN, J. – This is a revision petition under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1948 against the order dated 25.2.1994, passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Jodhpur. (2). In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sumitra was married to Budha Ram on 6.5.1990 according to Hindu customs and rites. Both of them lived together happily but after two months of the marriage the relations of inalws side of Sumitra started taunting her about dowry. She complained to her mother who advised to keep silence. Later on Budha Ram, the husband, and his relations used to give her beatings. Her mother sent some money to her clandestinely on three occasions. It amounted to Rs. 5000/-. Smt. Sumitra gave birth to two children and one of them expired. The living child was born on 22.8.1992. On 5.5.1992 the husband the husband and other relations of the husband asked her to bring Rs. 30,000/- from her father. She was threatened that in case she would not bring the money Budha Ram would contact second marriage. She refused to comply with such instructions and then she was given beating by the husband and his relations and she was truned out. Case No. 158/93 under Sec. 498A, IPC relating to this incident is pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jodhpur. She has been living with her parents from 5.5.1992 and is also keeping her minor daughter. The husband has a sweet meat shop and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month while Smt. Sumitra is an illiterate lady and is dependent on her parents. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month for herself and her daughter under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. She also filed a petition for interim maintenance with similar allegations. (3). Husband Budha Ram submitted reply on 23rd November, 1993 wherein he submitted that allegations of ill treatment are flase, that Smt. Sumitra was living with her parents on her own accord and she refused to live with the husband who was ready to keep her. He has also averred that his father has a small tea shop and he works there. The monthly income from the shop is Rs. 1800/-. He has also averred that his father has a small tea shop and he works there. The monthly income from the shop is Rs. 1800/-. His father and whole family comprising of 7 persons is dependent on this meagre income while Smt. Sumitra has taken training in tailoring work and she has been doing the work of stitching salwar-suits, petticots etc. It has been averred that the petitioners are not entitled for any interim maintenance. (4). Learned Judge of the Family Court by his impugned order dated 25.2.1994 has dismissed the petition for interim maintenance. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Sumitra has submitted that the reasons given by the learned Judge of the Family Court are not cogent. He has drawn my attention to SAvitri vs. Goind Singh Rawat (1), by which Apex Court has held that in the absence of any prohbition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. on conferring an implied power as the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. to pay some reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. The purpose is that during the pendency of maintenance application, applicant may get some amount so that her or she may make both ends meet. It is in order to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggarred and destituted on the scrap heap of society ahd thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. Looking to this purpose of maintenance, the Apex Court allowed interim maintenance to the persons who are entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, when the purpose of interim maintenance is that person who is entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. may make both ends meet during pendency of maintenance application, the grounds on which the application is rejected must be cogent and appealing. In order to grant interim maintenance, the court has to see that the person who claims maintenance should prima facie establish that a person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. Now, looking to the order of learned Family Court Judge I find that his approach to the application of interim maintenance was not correct. Now, looking to the order of learned Family Court Judge I find that his approach to the application of interim maintenance was not correct. He has arrived to the conclusion that no prima facie case for interim maintenance was established because Smt. Sumitra was living with her parents in order to compel the husband to live separate from his parents. He also held that the husband went to bring the wife but she refused to come with him. (6). There are affidavits of both the parties on record. Smt. Sumitra has supported her petition by her affidavit dated 1st October, 1993 which mentions that she was ill treated by the husband and his relations and on 5.5.1992 she was turned out because she had refused to bring Rs. 30,000/- from her parents. She was living with her parents thereafter keeping her minor daughter. The reply of the husband is also supported by his affidavit and he has stated that the petitioner had left him on her own, accord and when asked to come back she wanted to live separately. (7). There appears to be no reason as to why Smt. Sumitra would leave her husband unless there was ill treatment or demand of money. She has specifically stated in para 2 of her petition that immediately after two months of the marriage she was being taunted for dowry and in para 4 of the petition she has stated that a total amount of Rs. 5000/- was paid by her mother after marriage with Budha Ram. This amount was paid by her mother clandestinely to her thrice. She has stated in para 7 of the petition that on 5.5.1992 she was asked by the husband that she should bring Rs. 30,000/- from her father otherwise she would not be kept and the husband would contract another marriage. She refused and then she was given beating and turned out. A case of this incident was pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 4, Jodhpur. Husband has admitted the institution of criminal case but has averred that it was a false case. In view of what has been averred in the petition and supported by affidavits, I find that there is a prima facie case of the petitioner for interim maintenance. A case of this incident was pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 4, Jodhpur. Husband has admitted the institution of criminal case but has averred that it was a false case. In view of what has been averred in the petition and supported by affidavits, I find that there is a prima facie case of the petitioner for interim maintenance. The petitioner does not have any other source of income and a minor doughter of Budha Ram is being maintained by her who has an independent right of maintenance from her father. Neglect by husband may be seen from the conduct of the husband and in the case in hand I find that husband has been neglecting the wife as well as the minor child. In view of above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Judge of Family Court, Jodhpur, dated 25.2.1994 is set aside. He is directed to fix the quantum of interim maintenance to be paid by the husband to petitioners Smt. Sumitra and minor daughter Varsha. Both the parties are directed to appear before learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur on November 1, 1996.