Honble YAMIN, J. – Aggrieved by the order of learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 21.3.1996 petitioners have filed this revision petition under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984. None appeared on behalf of non-petitioner Nasire Khan who was served personally. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. (2). Briefly stated Mst. Sakina is a married wife of Nasire Khan. Sayar Mohammed and Ramzan Khatoon are two minor children of the couple. Mst. Mst. Sakina and Nasire Khan were married 15-16 years ago. The above named tow children wer born out of this wedlock. It was alleged that immediately after the marriage, for about 5 years, Nasire Khan behaved properly with his wife but later on he used to bear her. He did not look after his children properly. He was also married to one Mst. Chanda who remained issue less and, therefore, Naxire Khan had married Mst. Sakina in order to get children. It was alleged that Mst. Sakina was dragged out of house about 3 months ago and therefore, she alongwith two minor children came to her parents house. She did not have any independent income and was dependent on her father. Who was an old man and was serving in Railways. The husband was earning Rs. 5000/- per month, therefore she claimed maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife. The husband compromised on 6.8.1993 and took Mst. Sakina to his house but on 7.9.1993 she was again shunted out of the house with two minor children and she was living in her fathers house. (3). In reply, it was submitted that Sayar Mohammed was a 19 years mairred boy and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month while Nasire Khan was a 60 years old man and was not having any income. It was averred that Mst. Sakina was under the influence of her father and she has deserted the husband so that she may look after her father. Her father had left his wife who was living separately in a village. It was averred that at the earlier petition both the parties had compromised and Mst. Sakina was being kept properly but her father came to his house and took Mst. Sakina away under the pretext that Sakinas mother had fallen ill. Nasire Khan waited for 15-20 days and then went to fetch his wife. She was not sent back with him. Mst. Sakina was being kept properly but her father came to his house and took Mst. Sakina away under the pretext that Sakinas mother had fallen ill. Nasire Khan waited for 15-20 days and then went to fetch his wife. She was not sent back with him. Mst. Sakina did not return and she was living with her father on her own accord. It was further averred that the first wife of Nasire Khan was already living with the non petitioner and this fact was known to Mst. Sakina and that second marriage was performed because the first wife was not able to beget any child. Hence it was averred that Nasire Khan could not have ousted his wife. It was further averred that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Learned court below recorded evidence of both the parties and dismissed the petition in relation to wife as well as children. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court mis-read the evidence on record and this court has to interfere in this revision as it is a case of total mis-appreciation of evidence. He submitted that from the evidence on record it is proved that Sayar Mohammed and Ramzan Khatoon are minors and according to law they have independent right of maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Even then the learned Judge. Family Court did not allow even a single paisa to them as maintenance. He also submitted that Mst. Sakina was ousted by the non petitioners and she was not living with her father on her own accord even then the court below did not allow any amount of maintenance to her. He further submitted that the learned Judge of the family court should have appreciated the evidence properly. (5). I have gone through the evidence on record. It is very well proved that Sayar Mohammed was born on 15.8.1985 while Ramzan Khatoon was born on 11.6.1987 and they are minors. From the evidence of even Nasire Khan himself, it appears that both the children are minor. According to evidence & Janu Khan, who appeared on behalf of nasire Khan. Age of Sayar Mohammed was about 15 years while Ramzan Khatoon is of 12-13 years. From the evidence of even Nasire Khan himself, it appears that both the children are minor. According to evidence & Janu Khan, who appeared on behalf of nasire Khan. Age of Sayar Mohammed was about 15 years while Ramzan Khatoon is of 12-13 years. In view of the certificates Exhibits 2 and 3 which have been issued by the Headmaster of the school were the children are studying it is well proved that the children are still minor. The admitted fact is that Mst. Sakina and Nasire Khan were married 15-16 years ago. Hence, the children were definitely minor at the time when petition was filed and they are still. So According to Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. a minor child who is unable to maintain itself has an independent right to maintenance. This Court has also taken this view in Iqbal Shah vs. Mst. Bano (1), wherein it was held that the right of children is independent right from that of wife. Later on this view was followed in other cases. The learned Judge of the family court was not right in dismissing their petition. (6). So far as Mst. Sakina is concerned, it is proved from the evidence that the husband has neglected to maintain the wife. She is not living with her father on her own will but has been compelled to do so. She has stated the husband has shunted her out of the house about 4 years ago and then she went to her fathers house. Then she filed a petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and a compromise was arrived at. She went with the husband. In the meantime the case was kept pending before learned Judge. Family Court and on the date of hearing the husband did not allow her to come to court. The result was that the petition was dismissed. She stated that the husband again ousted her and then she went to her parents. She was subjected to a lengthy cross examination but she was not suggested that it was her father who took her under the pretext that her mother was no keeping well. The result was that the petition was dismissed. She stated that the husband again ousted her and then she went to her parents. She was subjected to a lengthy cross examination but she was not suggested that it was her father who took her under the pretext that her mother was no keeping well. Instead suggestions were made to her to the affect that she was living with her father in order to serve him because he was an old man and his wife was not living with him but when no suggestion to this affect was made that her father took her away under the pretext that her mother was ill, the questionof willingness of Smt. Sakina to live separately from the husband does not arise. Her case is that she was turned out of the house of her husband by the husband himself and she had no alternative but to live with her father. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the learned Judge, FAmily Court, has misread the evidence. When Mst. Sakina has been neglected by the husband she is entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. The husband appears to be quite intelligent that in the Family Court the earlier matter was compromised and the wife was brought by him to his house but later on he again turned her out and she went away to her parents house where she was dependent on an old man i.e. her Jather. She is not able to maintain herself and is entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge, Family Court cannot be sustained. I set aside the order dated 21.3.1996 and hold that Mst. Sakina is entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and the minor children Sayar MOhammed and Ramzan Khatoon are also entitled for maintenance under SEc. 125 Cr.P.C. as they have an independent right. (7). So far as the quantum is concerned I am of the view that it should be left for the learned Judge of the Family Court to decide the quantum of maintenance to all the three petitioners. The case be remanded back to him for decision of quantum and the method of payment of maintenance to all the three petitioners, parties are directed to appear before learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur on November, 20, 1996. The case be remanded back to him for decision of quantum and the method of payment of maintenance to all the three petitioners, parties are directed to appear before learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur on November, 20, 1996. This revision petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.