ORDER : 1. By way of filing of the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 r.w. Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. challenge has been made to the judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.11/2022 by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.218/2021 whereby the application under Section 21 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by petitioner was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are that she filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 21 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act of 2005’) and on 16.11.2021 she filed another application under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’) averring therein that from the very beginning of the marriage, she was physically and mentally harassed and humiliated by the respondent and the members of her in-laws family. She and her daughter were ousted out from her marital home and her minor son Gitish Bansal aged 9 years and 6 months at the relevant point of time was forcefully separated from her and she was not allowed to meet him. Thus, she prayed that she may be allowed to meet his son once in a week. 3. In reply thereto, the respondents stated that the petitioner filed application under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 with an intention to harass and humiliate him and his family members. It was further stated that he has not deserted her wife; she started living with her parents since last four years without any reasons. Further, it was stated in the reply that petitioner-wife used to beat and intimidate her son and, therefore, his son was not happy with her and that’s why Master Gitish is living with him and he has been provided all facilities for his study and other welfare. The petitioner filed an application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. for custody of her minor child and the same was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. for custody of her minor child and the same was dismissed. On 25.04.2022, the learned trial Court after hearing the rival parties, allowed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and ordered that she would be entitled to meet her son on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 11:00 am to 04:00 pm but compliance of which was not feasible. 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, (herein after referred to as ‘the learned appellate Court’) which was partly allowed vide order dated 22.11.2022 and it was ordered that the petitioner would meet her son on third Saturday of every month between 11:00 am to 04:00 pm in the Conference Hall of the Court complex. He submits that the order passed in appeal is a just and reasonable one and, therefore, the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate court has erred in passing the order dated 22.11.2022 by which she was allowed to meet her son in the conference hall of the Court complex, Sujangarh on 3rd Saturday of every month whereas the learned trial Court allowed the petitioner to meet her son on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month at any public place. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Act of 2005 alleging that she was maltreated by the respondents and his family members; she and her daughter were ousted from the marital home and was not allowed to meet her minor son Gitish. It has been further contended that the learned trial Court allowed the said application under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 whereby she was allowed to meet his son twice in a month i.e. on 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month. Thereafter, aggrieved from the said order, the respondents filed an appeal and the same was partly allowed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, learned counsel prayed that the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned trial Court may be upheld and the order 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Court may be quashed and set aside. 6. Thereafter, aggrieved from the said order, the respondents filed an appeal and the same was partly allowed by the learned appellate Court, therefore, learned counsel prayed that the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned trial Court may be upheld and the order 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Court may be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner-wife is residing with her parents since four years and is living separately from respondent-husband, who never forced her to left his house. He further submits that the petitioner has filed the said application with a malafide intention and the minor Son Gitish is also harassed by her behavior. He thus, prayed that respondent-husband is capable enough to provide resources for upbringing of his son. The education of the minor will be given utmost attention and his physical and mental health will not be neglected. He prays that the order passed by the learned appellate Court may be upheld. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record. 8. Before beginning with the observations, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant part of the orders passed by both the Courts below. 9. The learned trial Court while passing the order dated 25.04.2022 has allowed the petitioner to meet her son on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month at her resident and she was also allowed to accompany her child to any public place and spent time with him. 9. The learned trial Court while passing the order dated 25.04.2022 has allowed the petitioner to meet her son on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month at her resident and she was also allowed to accompany her child to any public place and spent time with him. The relevant part as relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:- ^^1- izkfFkZ;k ekg ds f}rh; ,ao prqFkZ jfookj dks le; 11 ,-,e- ls ysdj 4 ih-,e- rd cPps ls feyus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gksxhA 2- izR;FkhZ mDr fnolksa ij vius [kpZs ij cPps dks lqtkuxढ+ pq: ykdj izkfFkZ;k ls feyus dh O;oLFkk djsxkA 3- feyus ds LFkku ds ckjs esa mHk;i{k pkgs rks lgefr ls vU; LFkku Hkh r; dj ldrs gS ,oa ;fn mHk; i{kksa esa fdlh LFkku ckcr lgefr ugha gksrh gS rks izR;FkhZ mDr fnolksa ij ukckfyx iq= fxfr'k caly dks lqtkuxढ+ esa izkfFkZ;k ds fuokl LFkku ij ykdj izkfFkZ;k ls feyok,xkA 4- izkfFkZ;k pkgs rks cPPks dh lgefr o mlds eu ds vuqlkj mls mDr le;kof/k esa fdlh gksVy] jsLVksjasV] ikdZ ;k vU; blh izdkj ds je.kh; LFkyksa ij izR;FkhZ ds lkFk ?kqekus o ys tkus ds fy, Lora= gksxhA 5- ;g varfje vkns'k /kkjk 12 ?kjsyw fgalk ls efgykvksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds ewy izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k rd izHkkoh gksxkA^^ 10. The appellate Court vide order dated 22.11.2022 has partly allowed the appeal and it was ordered that petitioner will be allowed to meet her son in the conference hall of the Court complex at Sujangarh on 3rd Saturday of every month. The relevant part of the order is as under:- ^^1- izkfFkZuh & fuf/k caly izR;sd ekg ds r`rh; 'kfuokj dks vius iq= fxrs'k caly mez 11 o"kZ ls feyus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA bl laca/k esa vihykFkhZ@vizkFkhZ la-1 iquhr caly dks ;g vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd] og vius iq= fxrs'k caly dks izR;sd ekg ds r`rh; 'kfuokj dks U;k;ky; le; esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr j[ksxk ftlds mijkUr U;k;ky; ifjlj ¼dksVZ & dkWEIysDl½ esa cus dkWUQszal & gkWy esa izkfFkZuh& fuf/k caly ls fxrs'k caly dh feyus dh O;oLFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; lqfuf'pr djsxkA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk mDrkuqlkj feyus dk le; 11-00 ,-,e ls 04-00 ih-,e- rd ,oa xzh"edky esa U;k;ky; le; ifjorZu gksus dh n'kk esa 08 ,-,e- ls 12-00 ,-,e- r; fd;k tkosaA^^ 11. It is not disputed that right from inception Master Gitish is living with the respondents. The welfare of the child can never be measured by money alone or by physical comfort. The settled position of law is that petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor son and she got every right of visitation of her minor child so that he may not completely alienated from her mother. The minor child requires love, care and affection of both the parents. For over all development, and welfare of the child, it is always necessary that though the spouses may be fighting and litigating against each other but nonetheless the child should not be used as a tool for satisfaction of their respective egos. The Courts are always concerned with the welfare of the minor child and the technicalities have no role to play while adjudicating the disputes with regard to the minor child and the sole concern of the Court would be to see the welfare of the minor child. The Apex Court in case titled Tatineni Mayuri Vs. Edara Baldev reported in 2016 (13) SCC 377 has held that in the matters pertaining to custody of minor; welfare and interest of child to be given a paramount importance. 12. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tatineni Mayuri (Supra), this Court deems it appropriate to modify the order passed by the learned appellate Court to the extent that the petitioner would be allowed to meet her minor son Gitish on 3rd Saturday of every month at any public place instead of Court complex. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the learned trial Court deems to be more appropriate than to the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. However, it would be onerous for the respondent-husband to make arrangements for two visits in a month from District Fazilka, Punjab to Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the learned trial Court deems to be more appropriate than to the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. However, it would be onerous for the respondent-husband to make arrangements for two visits in a month from District Fazilka, Punjab to Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. Moreover, looking to the fact that the minor child Gitish is a school-going boy and two visitations in a month will adversely affect his studies as also, his physical and mental health, therefore, a slight relaxation is required to be made in the order passed by the learned trial Court and the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.11/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.218/2021 is affirmed with a slight modification in the point No.1. Thus, the point No.1 of the said order is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to meet her child on 3rd Saturday of every month between 11:00 am to 4:00 pm at any place. The Points No.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said order passed by the learned trial Court shall remain as it is. 15. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of