IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.924 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 18, 2011 Satish Mahla ... Petitioner Versus Smt.Neelam ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Satish Mahla – petitioner with his counsel Mr.Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate. Neelam – respondent with her counsel Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 04 th, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, affirming the order dated May 21 st, 2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, whereby, interim maintenance allowance @ Rs.18,000/- (Rs.12,000/- for clothing, medicines, etc. and Rs.6,000/- for grocerry articles) per month was awarded to the respondent wife and her two children, aged 19 years and 15 years, on the application filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `the Act'). 2. The solitary submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that at present the petitioner is unemployed and is not in a position to pay the interim maintenance allowance. 3. In response, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that per the certificate (Annexure P1) dated July 29 th, 2007, issued by A.P.Moller Singapore Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner was appointed as Chief Engineer for a period of three months at the salary of 3020 US dollars (about Rs.1,25,000/-) per month. He has also relied upon a sale-deed dated April 21 st, 2011 (Annexure R1), whereby, the petitioner has sold his property for a sum of Rs.20,16,000/- to his brother's wife, namely Sumitra Devi, a fact, which is not in dispute. 4. The petitioner, who is present in person, has also stated that he had been paying Rs.6 lacs per annum as premium of Life Insurance Policy for three years, but later, he could not pay the premium. 5. The aforesaid facts reveal that petitioner is an educated person. He was working as a Chief Engineer. Respondent wife and the children have been residing separately from him since February, 2010. The boy is pursuing B.Tech degree, while the girl is studying in 9 th standard. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also informed that till date, petitioner has not paid even a single penny as maintenance allowance to the respondent. 7. The application under section 125 Cr.P.C is yet to be disposed of. For that, parties shall be given opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. It is not a stage to evaluate the evidence of the parties thread-barely as only interim maintenance is granted to the destitute wife. 8. So far as the quantum of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.18,000/- is concerned, such an amount cannot be said to be on higher side looking into the standard of life of the petitioner. While determining maintenance, the standard and the status of life, which the destitute life enjoyed in her matrimonial home, is to be kept in mind. The petitioner being husband of the respondent and father of two children cannot wriggle out the moral responsibility to maintain them. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the order, under challenge, does not call for any interference. 10. Hence, petition is dismissed. Nothing said herein, shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 18, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE