Criminal Misc. No.8741/M of 2008. (1) ***** In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 7.4.2008. Sudhir Kumar ..... Petitioner. vs. Sunita Sharma and another ..... Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan. Present: Mr.K.S.Malik,Advocate,for the petitioner. R.S.Madan, J. The challenge herein this petition is to the order dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, whereby he allowed the petition of the respondents filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with respect to the grant of interim maintenance. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no.1 were married on 6.5.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, one female child Mansi was born. The case of the respondent wife is that the petitioner without any reasonable cause has neglected and refused to maintain them. It is the case of the respondent-wife that the petitioner is earning Rs.25,000/- per month from his business of dairy and agricultural work, whereas she has no source of income to maintain herself and minor child. Therefore, she is entitled for grant of maintenance. After hearing the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month each to respondent-wife and child as interim maintenance from the date of filing of Criminal Misc. No.8741/M of 2008. (2) ***** application i.e. 26.9.2006 till final decision of the main petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-wife knows the work of tailoring and embroidery and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He further contended that neither the petitioner runs any milk dairy nor there is any agricultural land in his name. The petitioner is working as casual labourer and is earning Rs.2500/- per month. Therefore, the maintenance fixed by the trial court is on higher side and needs modification. The petitioner has also not placed on the record any report of the patwari/ sarpanch of the village that petitioner is not an agriculturist nor he is running a dairy. In the absence thereof, the petitioner cannot be termed as a casual labourer. After going through the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent no.2 is her daughter. Every husband/ father is under an obligation to maintain his family and provide them food, shelter and protection. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to place on record any document worth its credence to be taken into consideration that the respondent-wife was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the tailoring and embroidery work. In the absence of any such evidence and in these days of rise in prices, it cannot be said that the interim maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate is on higher side. The petition is accordingly dismissed, in limine. 7.4.2008 (R.S.Madan) vs. Judge.