JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Manisha and Raj, wife and the son respectively of the respondent No. 1 Prakash being aggrieved of the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur in revision whereby, the Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwaru, District Dungarpur in Case No. 286/2008 whereby, the prayer made by the petitioners for being granted interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 neglected to maintain the petitioner and turned out of the house in October 2008 after committing cruelty on them. The petitioners, who had no means of maintaining themselves were living in a derelict condition. Thus, an application was moved on their behalf in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for being granted maintenance for their subsistence along with an application for interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara by order dated 30.8.2010. The petitioners challenged the trial Court's order by filing a revision and the Revisional Court held the revision to be not maintainable and also rejected the same on merits by the order dated 22.10.2011. Learned counsel submits that the prayer for interim maintenance made on behalf of the petitioners was rejected without assigning any reasons. He further submits that the main proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are also being delayed for unwarranted reasons. He thus submits that the learned trial Judge was duty bound to provide means of maintenance to the petitioners till the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided. 3. Per contra, Shri P.S. Chundawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Prakash Goswami vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioner Manisha left the matrimonial home because she was having an illicit relationship with some other man. He submits that the respondent No. 1 Prakash has placed documents on record of the trial Court which prove that the petitioner Manisha is living in an amorous relationship with a man. He thus submits that the trial Court committed no error, illegality or perversity in denying interim maintenance to the petitioners. 4. He submits that the respondent No. 1 Prakash has placed documents on record of the trial Court which prove that the petitioner Manisha is living in an amorous relationship with a man. He thus submits that the trial Court committed no error, illegality or perversity in denying interim maintenance to the petitioners. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation regarding the wife being involved in an amorous relationship could be considered to be a ground to deny interim maintenance to her. However, the child could not be denied maintenance for this reason. The father is definitely under a moral and legal obligation to maintain his child even though he is being kept separately by his mother, be it justified or not. 5. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the misc. petition succeeds in part. The order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur and the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagwara, District Dungarpur are affirmed to the extent of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Manisha. However, the prayer for interim maintenance made on behalf of the child the petitioner No. 2 Raj is accepted. It is hereby directed that the respondent No. 1 shall pay interim maintenance to his minor son the petitioner No. 2 Raj @ Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of filing of the application. The respondent shall deposit the arrears of maintenance accrued till date within a period of three months from today. He shall simultaneously continue to make payment of the current monthly interim maintenance to the petitioner No. 2 Raj by depositing the same in the trial Court by 10th of each month. If the arrears of the interim maintenance accrued till date and the monthly interim maintenance is not deposited as directed above, the trial Court shall forthwith issue warrants for recovery thereof.Record be sent back forthwith.Petition partly allowed. *******