1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.241/2009 Govind Gupta vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Order ::::: February 13,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mrs. Gayatri Rathore for the petitioner Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. A complaint under Section 12 of the The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was filed by respondent no.2 Smt. Manju Gupta, wife of petitioner in which the trial court i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Kota vide order dated 18.6.2008 fixed interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-. A unsuccessful revision came to be decided by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Kota by the order dated 11.9.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that many litigations are pending 2 between the petitioner husband and the respondent wife under the provisions of the Hindu Law and that a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn by the respondent wife. The petitioner is having a meager income out of which if Rs.2000/- per month is paid to the respondent then it will be very difficult for him to pull on. A perusal of the record reveals that after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and pending litigation between the parties and also the evidence produced by them, the trial court has reached to the conclusion that Rs.2000/- is a sufficient amount for the respondent to maintain her till the conclusion of the proceedings. Moreso, whatever amount which is being paid to the respondent that will be adjusted accordingly. It is a simple order of interim maintenance as in the facts of the case it is not possible for the respondent to live with the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is found that the amount of maintenance is neither illegal nor excess. While deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is not required for this Court to go into the minute details and what is to be seen is as to 3 whether the court below has committed any illegality or has transgrated the authority of law, which the petitioner has failed to prove. Simply a fact that the wife is an earning member is no ground to debar her from getting maintenance amount under the law. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that no interference is required to be called for by this Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the misc. petition stands dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa