ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. - Unsuccessful in getting visiting rights to meet her children before both the Courts below and refusal of appellate Court to enhance the interim maintenance amount, mother of three minor children and wife of respondent No.2-Ramesh Kumar, petitioner - Parvati, has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has set up a case that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home after suffering ill-treatment and harassment for years together. A fact of great significance is also highlighted by the petitioner that respondents made an attempt to strangulate her for bringing inadequate dowry. Initially, petitioner assailed the impugned orders by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but later on, considering her request, the same is treated as revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner-Parvati was married to respondent No.2-Ramesh Kumar on 26th of February, 2001 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Ratangarh and out of wedlock three children were born. As per version of the petitioner, during subsistence of matrimony for more than a decade she has suffered humiliation, cruel-treatment and beatings at the hands of husband and her in-laws. On many occasions petitioner's parents were abused and false imputations were made against her chastity. Cruelty was perpetrated on her for bringing inadequate dowry and respondents' unlawful demand of property or valuable securities continued unabatedly and forced her to leave matrimonial home. Highlighting and emphasizing all the allegations, petitioner eventually knocked the doors of Courts and filed an application under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of 2005') before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month with interim relief of visiting rights to meet her children and interim maintenance. 3. The learned trial Court, by its order dated 13th of January, 2015, granted interim maintenance to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month but declined her prayer for visiting rights to meet her children. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Court petitioner approached Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (for short, 'learned appellate Court') by filing an appeal but her that effort proved abortive inasmuch as learned appellate Court neither enhanced the quantum of interim maintenance nor allowed her visiting rights to meet her children. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Court petitioner approached Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (for short, 'learned appellate Court') by filing an appeal but her that effort proved abortive inasmuch as learned appellate Court neither enhanced the quantum of interim maintenance nor allowed her visiting rights to meet her children. The order dated 23rd of July, 2015, to this effect, of the learned appellate Court is impugned in the instant revision petition. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have seriously erred in declining the prayer of petitioner for visiting rights inasmuch as her afflictions have not been examined in the light of provision contained under Section 21 of the Act of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that she being mother, her right to visit children cannot be curtailed even if she is having different place of her residence. Learned counsel during the course of his arguments has not pressed the prayer for enhancement of interim maintenance. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments. 1. Jyoti @ Rashmi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2014 (3) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1325] 2. Kalyan Roy v. Priyanka Roy (Banerjee) [2016 (1) Crimes 228] (Calcutta High Court) 3. Vinay Gupta v. Saveri Nayak [2017 (1) Crimes 53 (Orissa High Court) 4. Sandeep Kumar Thakur v. Madhubala [2016 (sup) Him.L.R. 2611 (Himachal Pradesh High Court) 5. Vikas Agarwal v. Geeti Mathur [M.A.T. APP. (F.C.) 171/2016 (D.B. Delhi High Court). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of concurrent finding by both the Courts below, no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is warranted. Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents has urged that petitioner has left the matrimonial home at her own volition, therefore, she is not entitled for visiting rights to meet her children and this aspect has been taken care of by both the Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as order passed by learned trial Court. 7. There remains no quarrel that petitioner has staked her claim for visiting rights as a mother to meet her children. As biological mother, her concern for the well-being of her children and to meet them periodically cannot be under-played. 7. There remains no quarrel that petitioner has staked her claim for visiting rights as a mother to meet her children. As biological mother, her concern for the well-being of her children and to meet them periodically cannot be under-played. Section 21 of the Act of 2005 envisages with clarity and precision that in appropriate cases, Magistrate at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or any other relief under this Act, can grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or to the person making an application on her behalf. Merely because petitioner is having her different place of abode cannot be a significant factor for denying her right to visit her children. This Court in Jyoti @ Rashmi (supra) upheld the order passed by Magistrate and allowed the mother visitation rights. 8. In Kalyan Roy (supra), Calcutta High Court has allowed visitation rights to mother and held: "However, the opposite party/mother should not be deprived of the visiting right, as the child also should develop her relationship with her mother and enjoy the love and affection of her mother. I am informed by Learned Counsel representing both the parties that the opposite party/mother may meet the minor daughter in the residence of one Somnath Chatterjee who happens to be the husband of sister-in-law of the opposite party and who resides at Suri Housing Complex. This visiting right of the opposite party/wife can be exercised on 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month and the petitioner/husband must bring the minor daughter to the house of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee on the dates fixed by the court. In view of my above findings, the judgment and order passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum on May 18, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2015 by reversing the order passed by Learned Magistrate is hereby set aside. The minor daughter Manisha will remain in the custody of the petitioner/father temporarily till appropriate order of custody is passed by Learned District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act. The opposite party/mother will have the visiting right to meet the minor daughter on 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month in between 9 O'clock in the morning and 5 O'clock in the evening in the house of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee who is residing at Suri Housing Complex in the District of Birbhum. The opposite party/mother will have the visiting right to meet the minor daughter on 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month in between 9 O'clock in the morning and 5 O'clock in the evening in the house of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee who is residing at Suri Housing Complex in the District of Birbhum. The petitioner/father will escort the minor daughter to the house of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee on the scheduled date and time for exercise of visiting right by the opposite party/mother. With the above direction the Criminal Revision is disposed of." 9. In Vinay Gupta (supra), Orissa High Court, while considering power of the Court under Section 21 of the Act of 2005, duly recognised power of Magistrate to grant visitation right to a parent except when it has reasons to believe that such visitation would be harmful to the interests of child or children. The Court held:- "Section 21 of the P.W.D.V. Act further empowers the Magistrate to make arrangements for visit of the child or children by the respondent, if necessary. However, the Magistrate can refuse to allow the respondent to visit the child of children if he is of the opinion that any such visit would be harmful to the interests of the child or children." 10. In Sandeep Kumar Thakur (supra), H.P. High Court has also recognised the right of a mother for visiting right to her child or children. 11. In Vikas Agarwal (supra), Division Bench of Delhi High Court, while considering the welfare of child, has laid emphasis that the child be allowed to spend quality time with both the parents and in appropriate cases Family Court may direct parents to access a child counsellor and seek a report from the Counsellor. The Court held:- "The approach in law being, as far as possible, to ensure the child meeting both parents and spending quality time with both, instant case warranted the learned Judge Family Court to direct the parents to access a child counsellor and seek a report from the child counsellor. Help of a trained person who understands the behaviour of a child and the personality of a child was warranted in the instant case. Besides, two counsellors being attached with each family court in Delhi, the learned Judge ought to have taken the help of the counsellors as well. Help of a trained person who understands the behaviour of a child and the personality of a child was warranted in the instant case. Besides, two counsellors being attached with each family court in Delhi, the learned Judge ought to have taken the help of the counsellors as well. Directions should have been issued to the child to interact with the counsellors and the opinion of the counsellors used by the learned Judge." 12. This Court, in Smt Shanti Devi v. Phuli Devi S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.645/2016, decided on 14th of March, 2016, duly recognised the right of a mother for interim custody of a minor child under Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. The Court has also observed that paramount consideration, while granting interim custody of a minor child, is to see moral and ethical welfare of a child. It is also ruled by the Court that factum of re-marriage of mother cannot disentitle her to claim interim custody of her minor kids. 13. Needless to observe here that this Court has also acknowledged visitation right of a mother, therefore, in totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, both the Courts below have committed a manifest error of law and fact in declining the prayer of petitioner for visitation rights to meet her children. 14. In view thereof, impugned order, to that extent, is liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The order, declining prayer for visiting rights of the petitioner, are not satisfying the test of judicial propriety, therefore, order of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court, to that extent, is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to visit her children every weekend until final decision of her main petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The time and place where she can meet her children may be decided by the learned trial Court on such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and appropriate by the learned trial Court. The petition is, accordingly, allowed in part as indicated herein above.