JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.03.2000 passed by the learned revisional court whereby he has partly allowed the same and modified the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. On an application for maintenance, the learned Magistrate had awarded an amount of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner and Rs. 400/- to her son. The said application for maintenance was contested by non-petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner had been living separately without any just reason and she had illicit relation with a person at her parental home, as a result of which she has sustained pregnancy. The learned Magistrate while considering the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence on record and taking into consideration that the non-petitioner had failed to establish that the petitioner had sustained pregnancy while living in adultery, it gives a just cause for the petitioner to live separately from her husband, as such like allegations are sufficient to compel her to live at her parental home. 3. The learned revisional court had taken note of the factual aspect of the matter but while arriving to the conclusion in respect of insufficient cause of the petitioner to live separately from her husband, he had only taken into consideration two aspects of the matter namely, that the husband was habitual of drinking and that he had also given beating to the petitioner. On such ground alone, the learned revisional court had come to the conclusion that it was not a sufficient reason for the petitioner to live separately and as such she is not entitled for maintenance. 4. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts below. The learned Magistrate had elaborately, dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and also appreciated the entire evidence adduced by both the parties. Apart from the reason that the petitioner lived separately in view of harassment and cruelty which she was made to suffer at the time, of husband who was habitual in drinking and gave beating to the wife, the learned Magistrate had taken into consideration the fact that the husband non- petitioner had come with a specific case of adultery. On his failure to prove the same, is sufficient and just reason for the petitioner-wife to live separately at her parental home. On his failure to prove the same, is sufficient and just reason for the petitioner-wife to live separately at her parental home. This important aspect of the matter has not at all been looked into by the learned revisional court. As a matter of fact, he has not given any finding or any cogent reason for reversing the order of the learned Magistrate in respect of maintenance awarded to the petitioner-wife. On the point of the just reason for the wife to live separately on account of allegation of adultery, a report was also lodged by the husband. 5. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that the scope of the revisional court is limited one. Unless and until there is cogent reason or there had been perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the learned revisional court ought not to have set aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the learned revisional court had erred in partly allowing the revision petition filed by the non-petitioner No.2 and, therefore, the order of the learned revisional court, setting aside the maintenance granted to the petitioner-wife, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is accepted and it is ordered that the order passed by the revisional court on 14.03.2000, to the extent of setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate in respect of the award of maintenance to the petitioner- wife is quashed and set-aside. The order of the learned Magistrate passed on 05.05.1999 granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife and her son is hereby'affirmed.Petition allowed. *******