[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 942/2007 RAEES MOHAMMED Vs. CHAND BANO & ORS. Date: 22.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Neeraj Chandrana for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Gupta for the respondents. **** The respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance along with an application under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Reengus, District Sikar. The Court below after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 07.03.2007 while allowing the application under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C., granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the respondent wife and Rs. 500/- per month each in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, minor children of the petitioner from the date of filing of the application i.e. 07.10.2006. The main challenge to the order impugned dated 07.03.2007 by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the ground that admitting the fact that petitioner [2] is only earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, the Court has granted interim maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the respondents which is per se excessive than the income of the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned requires interference by this Court. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that at this stage the present misc. petition is not maintainable as it is directed against the interim maintenance order and the petitioner is every right to challenge the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the Court below on the grounds which are taken here in this misc. petition by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and upon careful perusal of the order impugned dated 07.03.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Reengus, it is not disputed that the maintenance granted in favour of the respondents on the application under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C., is interim maintenance and the grounds which are taken by the petitioner here in the instant criminal misc. petition challenging the interim maintenance order, can be raised at the time of final disposal of the application [3] under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all just and valid objections at the time of hearing on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but at this stage, this Court do not want to interfere in the order impugned dated 07.03.2007. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/