In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2068 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Chandan Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Bimla Devi .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) challending order dated 8.5.2010 passed by District Judge (Family Court) Faridabad, whereby interim maintenance was allowed on an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is husband of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner No.1 and the respondent. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance as she has no source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is 63 years old lady. She alleged that she Crl.Rev.No. 2068 of 2010 (O&M) -2- was residing separately from the petitioners and they had failed to maintain her. A complaint was also lodged by the respondent with the police on 18.8.2008 on the allegations that she had been treated with cruelty by the petitioners. She was got medico legally examined and ultimately a compromise was got effected between the parties with the intervention of panchayat. Vide the impugned order the petitioners have been directed to pay Rs.2,500/- each by way of interim maintenance to the respondent. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself. Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated with a view to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted wives or parents to save them from vagrancy. The said provision has a social object to achieve and is remedial rather than punitive. The amount of interim maintenance allowed by the trial Court cannot be said to be on the higher side keeping in view the high prices in these days. Moreover, the said amount of maintenance has merely been fixed by way of interim maintenance and the parties are yet to prove their respective pleas by leading their evidence. Hence, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE August 02, 2010 anita