IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.447 OF 2009 Nishikant Rai ………Petitioner Versus Mrs. Sangeeta Mittal & another …Respondents Dated: April 7, 2010 Sri D. Barthwal, Adv. for petitioner Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the respondents HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.326 of 2004, Smt. Sangeeta Mittal & another Vs. Nishikant Rai. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In nutshell, facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 moved an application for herself and on behalf of her daughter Km. Nandini Mittal u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the allegations that she got married with the petitioner on 6.7.1999 at Dehradun as per Hindu RITES and out of the said wedlock, she gave birth to respondent no.2 on 26.9.2001. Soon after the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the petitioner for demand of dowry and ultimately on 25.5.2002, she was ousted from the house. It was stated that the petitioner’s monthly income is about Rs.45,000/- per month and as such an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month was sought as maintenance for the respondent and her daughter. The petitioner also filed his objection before the court below. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide order dated 17.12.2007 granted Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent no.2 against the petitioner from the date of application. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has awarded excessive amount of interim maintenance. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner is working as a Manager in ONGC and the petitioner himself has annexed the pay slip of month of November, 2007 in which the total earnings of the petitioner has been shown as Rs.60,826/-. Even on a perusal of the total salary shown in FORM No.16, which itself has been annexed by the petitioner, it transpires that the Annual Gross Salary of the petitioner has been mentioned as Rs.10,52,290/- which comes to about Rs.87,500/- per month. In this count also, the amount awarded towards interim maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, I find that in the year November 2007 itself, the petitioner was working on the post of Manager in ONGC and now in the year 2010, his salary must have been increased on a much higher level. Even looking to the salary of the petitioner for the year 2007 itself and by taking into consideration the salary shown in FORM 16 as that of the petitioner, the trial court has merely awarded only Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance and that too for his own daughter and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded seems to be meager one. For the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the court below for awarding Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent no.2 from the date of application and the amount awarded seems to be correct and justified. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 24.1.2008 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.04.2010 Rajeev Dang