Judgment 1. This revision challenges the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.32 of 2013, on 08.04.2013. 2. The petitioner/wife moved a petition seeking arrears of maintenance informing that the same was due from the respondent/husband. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, under order dated 18.01.2013, directed payment of a sum of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety five thousand) within a period of two weeks. There against, the respondent/husband moved Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2013, which was allowed on the reasoning that the petitioner/wife had refused to join the husband despite her having obtained an order of restitution of conjugal rights and despite the respondent/husband having forwarded train tickets towards enabling her to do so on two occasions. 3. We have heard Ms. Revathi G. Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Auxiliapeter, learned counsel for respondent. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the orders under challenge, we find that both Courts below have erred. The Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in directing payment of arrears of maintenance, despite an application for setting aside the ex-parte order of maintenance passed against the respondent/husband, pending before him. In the event of the petition for setting aside the order of maintenance being found justified, then the original order for payment of maintenance would require re-consideration. In the event of the Magistrate finding the same unjustified, it would have been open to him to pass an order directing payment of arrears of maintenance. Therefore, the Magistrate ought to have, in the first phase decided the application for setting aside the order of maintenance and thereafter proceeded further. 5. Insofar as the appellate Court is concerned, we find that for the mere reason that the tickets stand forwarded to the petitioner/wife by the respondent/husband ostensibly towards enabling her to join him, the appellate Court has held against the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner/wife to explain as to why she is unable to join her husband, despite an order of restitution. Only upon consideration thereof, a decision whether or not she is justified in not taking up residence with her husband can be decided. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, both the orders of Court below shall stand set aside. Only upon consideration thereof, a decision whether or not she is justified in not taking up residence with her husband can be decided. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, both the orders of Court below shall stand set aside. The application in Crl.M.P.No.2345 of 2012 shall now stand remitted to the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for fresh consideration and for passing a reasoned order on merits, in keeping with the observations made herein above. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, shall dispose of the matter within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 7. In the result, the criminal revision case stands allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.