JUDGMENT 1. - This is revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.06.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and against the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for granting the maintenance allowance and other relief. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two prayers before the trial court in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The first prayer was for custody of her child. The second prayer was for maintenance. 3. The first prayer was rejected but visitation rights were granted. She was allowed to meet her minor child at Surat for which, travelling expenses were ordered to be given by the respondent-husband. 4. The second prayer was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has already been granted Rs. 5,000/- per month in the proceedings pending before the family court at Surat. 5. The present revision petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur as well as for setting aside the order vide which the interim maintenance has been rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly conceded to the first prayer for modification of the order vide which the travelling expenses are granted only qua the petitioner and states that the respondent-husband has no objection to the payment of travelling expenses for another person who will accompany the petitioner to meet her minor child. It is stated by him that the respondent-husband is ready to pay the travel expenses qua such person who will escort the petitioner. 7. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the total travelling expenses as ordered by the trial court towards rail fare/deluxe bus charges for one person is Rs. 1400/- both sides. 8. The respondent-husband is ready to pay Rs. 3,000/- in total towards the said travelling expenses for two persons including the petitioner. The respondent-husband is also ready to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards hotel charges for staying at Surat. 9. 1400/- both sides. 8. The respondent-husband is ready to pay Rs. 3,000/- in total towards the said travelling expenses for two persons including the petitioner. The respondent-husband is also ready to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards hotel charges for staying at Surat. 9. In view of the fair statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the first prayer of the petitioner for modification of the order to the said extent is allowed. The petitioner will be at liberty to take second person with her in order to meet her minor child. The respondent will pay Rs. 3,000/- for one such visit which will be once in a month and also pay Rs. 1,000/- towards hotel charges for staying at Surat. The said amount will be deposited by the respondent before the trial court within first week of the month on the claim with bills/tickets submitted by the petitioner. The respondent will not insist for the bill towards the hotel charges. Rs. 1,000/- will be deposited voluntarily towards boarding/lodging charges without any demand of bill. 10. However, there is no merit in the second prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for interim maintenance. There is nothing wrong in the order passed by the trial court rejecting the prayer on the ground that the family court, Surat has already ordered Rs. 5,000/- as interim maintenance to the petitioner.Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. *******