IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.893 OF 2009 Imtiaz S/o Anwaar ………Petitioner Versus Smt. Uzma Babi …Respondents Dated: April 26, 2010 Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for petitioner Mr. Pramod Tewari, Advocate for the respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.8.2009 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No.150 of 2008, Smt. Azma Babi Vs. Imtiaz. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In nutshell, facts of the case are that the respondent moved an application for herself u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the allegations that she got married with the petitioner on 3.11.2006 as per Muslim rituals and in the marriage, her father spent about Rs.4.00 lacs, however the petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry given by the father of respondent due to which she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. On 6.8.2008, she was subjected to physical harassment and in the night she went to her father’s house. She also moved a complaint u/s 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Further, the applicant/respondent shown herself as a domestic women while the petitioner was shown to be a contractor out of which he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and as such Rs.10,000/- per month was sought as interim maintenance. The petitioner also appeared and denied the allegations and stated that he intends to take his wife with love and affection and he has never demanded dowry nor harassed her ever. Further, he works as a labourer and as such prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee on 7.8.2009 directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent by the 5th of each month since August, 2009. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has awarded excessive amount of interim maintenance. He further submitted that the petitioner works as a labour out of which he hardly earns Rs.1,500/- per month, as such it is not possible for him to pay the amount as awarded. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner and respondent are the husband and wife. It is also admitted that the respondent is living separately from her husband/petitioner. The petitioner has also annexed the medical certificate as well as the expenses being incurred by him towards his medical treatment. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is ailing with various diseases and also perusing the entire material on record, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the amount so awarded by the court below be modified to Rs.1,000/- per month. For the reasons as above said, the petition is partly allowed with the direction that the petitioner shall pay Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent by the 5th of each month instead of Rs.1,500/- as awarded by the court below. However, it is directed that this order shall not come in the way while deciding the original case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Interim order dated 21.10.2009 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.04.2010 Rajeev Dang