JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: Revision Petition No. 1141/2019: vr% QkStnkjh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk is'k dj izkFkhZ fouez fuosnu djrk gS fd ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; la[;k 01] tks/kiqj jkt ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh iznhi dqekj tSu] ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dsMj }kjk QkStnkjh ewy izkFkZuk i= la[;k 04@2018 cvuoku~ ^^Jherh uhrw cuke jktsUnz dqekj* ds izdj.k esa tks vkns'k fnukad 10-07-2019 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k mls vikLr fd;k tkos] vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; bl QkStnkjh fuxjkuh ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d le>s] gqdqe QjekosaA Revision Petition No. 599/2018: "a) The present revision petition shall be accepted. b) Order passed by Additional Session Judge (women Atrocities cases) Jodhpur metro dated 2/05/2018 in criminal appeal no. 17/2018 titled "Smt. Neetu v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors" shall be set aside. c) Order passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan magistrate no. 4 Jodhpur Metro dated 4/12/2017 in case no. 932/2017 titled "Smt. Neetu v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors" shall be set aside. d) An order may be passed directing the non-revisionist to not to lock the main gate of the matrimonial house of the revisionist and not to restrain the revisionist from entering into her residential portion of her matrimonial home. e) Litigation expenses shall be granted to the revisionists. f) Order of cost shall be passed in favor of revisionists." Revision Petition No. 1280/2019: "a. Present petition may be allowed by this Hon'ble Court. b. Order dated 10.07.2019 passed by learned Family Court No. 1 Jodhpur in criminal case no. 4/2018 titled "Smt. Neetu v. Rajendra Kumar" may be modified to the extent that the quantum of interim maintenance may be enhanced from Rs. 14000/- per month to Rs. 45000/- per month. c. Quantum of interim maintenance may be enhanced from Rs. 14000/- per month to Rs. 45000/- per month and the said amount may be granted from the date of application. d. Cost of this petition and other legal expenses may be awarded in favour of the present petitioner." 3. 14000/- per month to Rs. 45000/- per month. c. Quantum of interim maintenance may be enhanced from Rs. 14000/- per month to Rs. 45000/- per month and the said amount may be granted from the date of application. d. Cost of this petition and other legal expenses may be awarded in favour of the present petitioner." 3. Smt. Neetu (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') and Shri Rajendra Kumar Prajapat (hereinafter referred to as "husband") are, amongst others, the parties to the present petitions. 4. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 599/2018, while treating the same as a lead case. 5. The wife pleaded that since her marriage, her husband and in-laws have continuously harassed and mistreated her. Although at the time of institution of the case, she was residing in her matrimonial home, her husband and in-laws have been trying to oust her from her matrimonial home. And further, that the learned court below has also recorded the finding to the said effect. Subsequently, the husband's father also filed an application seeking to evict the wife from her matrimonial home before the concerned court, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned court below. However, although she was not ousted from her matrimonial home, the living environment was such that she was compelled to leave the home. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife submits that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws due to constant harassment. And that, the main gate of the matrimonial home would be locked denying her re-entry therefrom. 6.1. Learned counsel further submits that the wife presented an application before the concerned court praying that the husband be restrained from denying her free and safe passage of entry and exit in relation to her matrimonial home. However, the said application was dismissed. And that the wife preferred an appeal, which was also subsequently dismissed. 6.2. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below have not rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, and also suffers from misreading of the material available on record before them. 6.3. Learned counsel further submits the wife presented an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court seeking monthly interim maintenance. 6.3. Learned counsel further submits the wife presented an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court seeking monthly interim maintenance. The wife, had in the application, stated that she does not have an independent source of income, while her husband has a large successful business of garments, including export thereof. And that the monthly income of the husband is around 2/2.5 lacs, and therefore, her prayer seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- be granted. And that the learned court below accepted the said application, but only granted a monthly maintenance of Rs. 14,000/- vide order dated 10.07.2019. 6.4. Learned counsel also submits that the said order did not take into consideration the fact that the husband filed his income tax returns for the financial years, 09 months after the filing of the cases by the wife, and the same was passed without timely calling of the income tax returns for the preceding 05 years, rather the said order was passed solely on the basis of the income tax returns filed at a belated stage subsequent to the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband submits that the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the applications, preferred by the wife, seeking a direction that she be granted a free and safe passage of entry and exit into the matrimonial home, with the observation that the claims so made were without any basis and unsupported by the evidences placed on record before the learned courts below. And that, the impugned orders of the learned courts below on such applications have rightly found the allegations made by the wife therein to be completely baseless. 7.1. Learned counsel further submits that the averments made by the wife regarding her employment status, in the application preferred under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned court below, are false, since she is engaged in a legal profession for a period of above 15 years, and therefore, has an independent source of income. 7.2. Learned counsel also submits that the husband's income tax returns, as available with him, shows that he is not in a sound enough financial position to bear the amount of maintenance as awarded to the wife by the learned Family Court, and thus, the amount so awarded deserves to be reduced appropriately. 8. 7.2. Learned counsel also submits that the husband's income tax returns, as available with him, shows that he is not in a sound enough financial position to bear the amount of maintenance as awarded to the wife by the learned Family Court, and thus, the amount so awarded deserves to be reduced appropriately. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this observes as follows: Revision Petition No. 599/2018: 8.1. This Court observes that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 04.12.2017, while noticing that the right of residence of the wife shall be protected by the concerned investigating officer dismissed the claim of the wife with the finding that the wife has concealed material facts, while filing the application. And the learned court below held that the same is evident from the fact that the wife in fact has a separate entry to her matrimonial home, outside which, her name plate was also affixed. 8.2. This Court observes that the learned appellate court in passing the impugned order dated 02.05.2018 dismissed the appeal so preferred by the wife, from the aforesaid order of the learned trial court, with the observation that the lawful right of the residence of the wife shall be protected by the concerned investigating officer and while upholding the said order, the learned appellate court also recorded the finding that the wife in fact had a portion of the matrimonial home to herself, for which, she had a separate entry upon which, her name plate was also affixed. Revision Petition No. 1141/2019 & 1280/2019: 8.3 This Court observes that the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Application No. 04/2018, answering the issues framed therein in favour of the wife, was based on the escalated cost of living in the present times and after taking into consideration the quality and standard of living of the wife, had awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- to her, from the date of the said order, while also awarding her Rs. 8,000/- for each month from the date of application to the date of the said order, since she was residing in the residence of her husband i.e. the matrimonial home, for the preceding two months from the date of said order. 14,000/- to her, from the date of the said order, while also awarding her Rs. 8,000/- for each month from the date of application to the date of the said order, since she was residing in the residence of her husband i.e. the matrimonial home, for the preceding two months from the date of said order. 8.4 This Court also observes that even though it is admitted fact that the wife is an Advocate, but there is nothing on record to reflect that she is making an independent income. 9. In view of the above and on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below are well reasoned, and do not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.