1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1038 of 2010 1. Smt. Deepika Vats,W/o Amit Kumar D/o Rajendra Prasad Vats R/o H.No. 16 New Haridwar P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar District Haridwar 2. Master Kartik aged about 2 years (minor) S/o Amit Kumar Through natural guardian mother Deepika Vats R/o H.No. 16 New Haridwar P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar District Haridwar …..…Petitioners Versus Amit Kumar, S/o Satish Kumar R/o Village C-225 Govindpuri Modi Nagar, P.S. Kotwali Modi Nagar District Meerut ……….Respondent Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, present for the complainant. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 25.08.2010, passed by 2 Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in case no. 14 of 2009, Deepika & another vs. Amit Kumar, under section 125 Cr.P.C.. 3. Admittedly, petitioner no. 1 Deepika Vats is wife of respondent Amit Kumar. It is also not disputed that Kartik aged 2 ½ years is their son. The wife, and the son appear to have moved an application before the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, claiming maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.. During the pendency of said application, the application for interim maintenance was also moved. After hearing the parties vide impugned order dated 25.08.2010, the trial court has directed the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 1,000/- per month to his wife, and ` 500/- per month to his son. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order on the ground that the amount directed to be paid is too meager. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that petitioner no. 2 Deepika Vats is herself a Ph.D, and is able to earn for herself. It is also pointed out that monthly income of the respondent 3 is ` 5,000/- per month (which is the admitted amount). 5. Merely for the reason that wife holds degree of Ph.D., does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance particularly when she is not in any job. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, for the ends of justice, the impugned order dated 25.08.2010, requires modification , and it is directed that till the disposal of application under section 125 Cr.P.C., pending before the trial court, the respondent shall pay ` 1,500/- per month to his wife, and ` 1,000/- per month to his minor son in terms of the order dated 25.08.2010, passed by the trial court. With this modification in the impugned order, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of with the observation that the trial court shall proceed with, and decide finally the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., as early as possible. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 12.09.2011