Crl.R.No.2440 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2440 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:September 7, 2010 Sunder @ Surender Singh .....Petitioner v. Kanta and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19.7.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, vide which respondent no.1-Kanta, wife of present petitioner, was granted interim maintenance @ 900/- per month, whereas respondent nos.2 and 3, i.e., Reshu and Ritika, minor daughters of respondent no.1, were granted interim maintenance @ Rs.400/- per month each, during pendency of main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no sufficient ground for respondent-wife to live separate from the petitioner and that petitioner has also obtained an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the `Act') from the Court of learned District Judge, Narnaul. However, merely on the ground that petitioner has obtained ex parte decree under Section 9 of the Act against his wife, it cannot be said that respondent-wife is not having sufficient cause to live separate from the petitioner alongwith her minor children. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, has rightly placed reliance upon Babu Lal v. Sunita 1987 Crl.L.J. 525, wherein it was observed that passing of decree of restitution of Crl.R.No.2440 of 2010 (O&M) -2- conjugal rights is by itself not a ground, to dis-allow maintenance to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C, if she has reason to live separate. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, also placed reliance upon Mohd.Shakeel v. Shaheena Parveen, 1987 Crl.L.J. 1509. Moreover it is a matter of evidence to be adduced before leaned District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani as to whether the respondent-wife is having sufficient cause to live separate from the petitioner. Vide impugned order, only interim maintenance was granted to the respondent-wife and her minor children, who are unable to maintain themselves. The amount of interim maintenance awarded by learned District Judge, Bhiwani, also cannot be said to be on higher side. Hence, in view of these facts, no interference in the impugned order is called for. It cannot be said that the impugned order is, in any way, illegal or erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in this revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 7.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge