JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition is preferred against the order dated 13/4/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner in revision whereby, the learned revisional court partly accepted the revision preferred by the respondent and modified the order dated 15/1/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nokha in Criminal Case No.19/2003. 2. The petitioner being the wife of the respondent filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, claiming maintenance for herself and her children. The application was allowed by order dated 15/1/2008 and the Magistrate directed that the respondent shall be liable to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 200/- each to his two minor children from the date of filing of the application that is 6/1/2003. The respondent husband challenged the order passed by the Magistrate and the revisional Court, set aside the order of maintenance to the petitioners extent, but maintained the order of maintenance passed in favour of the two minor children. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition challenging the order passed by the revisional Court. 3. Shri Shrimali Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Magistrate appreciated the material available on record in a just and proper fashion and held the petitioner entitled to receive maintenance but at the paltry rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The revisional court without any justification and for an extraneous considerations, set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner. He contended that the finding recorded by the revisional Court that the petitioner deserted the respondent and was living separately without any cause is without any basis and unsupported by the evidence available on record. He contended that the respondent did not appear before the trial Court to counter the petitioners case and as such, the revisional court was unjustified in disbelieving and discarding the petitioners evidence and setting aside the order of maintenance passed in her favour. As per him, the revisional court picked out a stray portion from the petitioners evidence and ignoring the overall effect of her testimony, in a conjectural fashion, set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate in her favour. As per him, the revisional court picked out a stray portion from the petitioners evidence and ignoring the overall effect of her testimony, in a conjectural fashion, set aside the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate in her favour. He therefore prays that the order passed by the revisional Court be set aside and the one passed by the learned Magistrate be restored. 4. Process was served on the respondent. Despite service of summons, nobody appeared on his behalf. The petitioners Counsel informed this Court on 17/12/2013 that he had been inadvertently instructed to argue the case on behalf of the respondent. On this, fresh notice was issued to the respondent and was served on his elder brother. Service was treated to be complete. Despite service, the respondent again chose not to be represented before this Court. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Shrimali the petitioners Counsel and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the record. 6. The trial Court appreciated the evidence led before it in entirety and arrived at a conclusion that the respondent neglected to maintain his wife and children without any justification. The evidence led by the petitioner and her witnesses was categoric to the effect that after marriage, the respondent husband neglected to maintain her and also humiliated and tortured her physically. An attempt was made on behalf of the respondent to suggest in cross-examination of the petitioner that she had deserted the respondent. The petitioner admitted that she was ready to live with her husband if proper arrangement was made for her sustenance. She also admitted that her husband imposed a condition upon her that she would not go to visit her mother if she wanted to stay in the matrimonial home. In the opinion of this Court, a married woman has unrestricted right to visit her maternal home whenever the opportunity arises. To be fair, the very suggestion given during cross-examination of the lady shows the domineering nature of the husband. It appears that the husband wanted to put fetters on the petitioner's visits to her maternal home. The learned revisional court picked out the said portion from the statement of the lady and held that she was living separately from the husband without a reasonable cause and thus was not entitled to receive maintenance. It appears that the husband wanted to put fetters on the petitioner's visits to her maternal home. The learned revisional court picked out the said portion from the statement of the lady and held that she was living separately from the husband without a reasonable cause and thus was not entitled to receive maintenance. The view taken by the revisional court is highly unjust and unfair. Significantly enough, the husband, that is the respondent chose not to appear in evidence and counter the case set up by the wife. In this background, the revisional court was not at all justified in picking up stray lines from the statement of the lady and setting aside the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court in her favour. Otherwise also, the maintenance awarded to the petitioner was a paltry amount of Rs. 500/- p.m. The order passed by the revisional Court is grossly illegal and also amounts to an abuse of process of Court and cannot be sustained. 7. As an upshot of the above discussion, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 13/4/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner in revision is quashed. Resultantly the order dated 15/1/2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nokha is restored. 8. Record be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******