In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-5689 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.3.2009 Manoj Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Geeta Devi .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda , Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Manoj Kumar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal, whereby he was directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.1,200/- per month to the respondent; and judgment dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-2), vide which the order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Respondent Geeta Devi filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) against the present petitioner. Vide order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-1), interim maintenance @ Rs.1,200/- per month was allowed to the Criminal Misc. No.M-5689 of 2009 -2- respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is merely working as a barber and does not have sufficient means even to maintain himself. The factum of marriage of petitioner with the respondent is not in dispute. The petitioner is working as a barber in a village. A provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated with a view to protect the deserted wives from starvation and vagrancy. The provision is remedial rather than punitive. It is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself. Hence, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. The amount of interim maintenance allowed by the Courts below cannot be said to be on the higher side in these days of high prices. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 19, 2009 anita