SBCRRP989/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.989/2010 Mohammed Rafik Vs. Rehana Date of Order ::: 20.08.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Shamsuddin Ansari, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 21.06.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota, by which the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 04.05.2009 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Kota, has been dismissed and the interim maintenance to the wife and minor child in the sum of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/-, respectively, has been upheld. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that even after implementation of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, the salary which the petitioner is getting, is not so much that he can pay such high amount of maintenance of Rs.3000/- to the wife and son. It is contended that the petitioner has another wife and surviving parents dependent upon him. Learned counsel submitted that so far there was no conclusive evidence produced before the learned court below to assess the exact income of the petitioner so as to SBCRRP989/2010 // 2 // award such high amount of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the respondent as interim maintenance. The learned counsel further submitted that the assertion of the respondent-wife that the petitioner has monthly earning of Rs.15000/- cannot be accepted unless it was proved by production of conclusive evidence. The courts below have committed serious error of law in not accepting the version of the petitioner regarding his monthly income. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I find that the respondent-wife pleaded before the court that the petitioner is working with the Indian Railways as Gang man. The learned court below, taking into consideration that fact and the fact that even if the petitioner was not receiving Rs.15000/- per month and, according to his own assertion, has been getting Rs.13000/- per month, considered it appropriate to award interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the wife and Rs.1000/- to minor son. Merely because the petitioner has second wife to maintain, may not be a ground to deny interim maintenance to the respondent-wife and son. Moreover, this is only interim maintenance and whenever the final order would be passed, it would always be open to the trial court to vary the amount of interim award and if the trial court is persuaded on the basis of evidence to be led before it regarding the actual income and other liabilities of the petitioner, it SBCRRP989/2010 // 3 // may award lesser than what is claimed by the respondent keeping in view the liabilities on the petitioner, but in this revision petition amount of interim maintenance awarded by the court below cannot be reduced on the ground that he cannot pay the amount demanded by her. With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//