IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 990 OF 2009 Vijendra Kumar ….…..Applicant. Versus Mohit Kumar and another. ……...Respondents. Present: Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision : 9.9.2010 Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant (husband) against an “interim maintenance” of Rs. 10,000/- fixed on an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Case No. 7 of 2008 moved by the wife of the applicant namely Smt. Babita before the Family Court, Haridwar. The maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., however, has been awarded not to the wife, but to the two minor children namely Master Mohit Kumar and Master Rohit Kumar, who have been impleaded as respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the present application. The amount though has to be paid to Smt. Babita with whom the two minor kids of the applicant are presently staying. It has come in the evidence that both the husband and wife are teachers. The wife Smt. Babita with whom the children are staying is also a teacher and earning a salary of Rs. 24,000/- per month, it is for this reason that the maintenance has been fixed for two minor children only. 3. Since the order dated 23.11.2009 granting an amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to the two children has been passed only as an interim measure and the case has to be finally heard under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., this Court deems it fit and proper that till the disposal of the application, the applicant shall continue to pay a maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month each to the two minor children i.e. Rs. 8,000/- per month to both children as fixed by this Court vide its interim order dated 2 24.12.2009. It is further clarified that the amount is liable to be paid from the date of order. The interim order dated 24.12.2009 is reproduced below: “Mr. RK Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. Heard and perused the order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Family Judge, Haridwar in case no. 7 of 2008. Admit. The operation of impugned order dated 23.11.2009 shall remain stayed if the petitioner pays Rs. 4000/- to each of the respondents no. 1 & 2 by the 10th of every month from the date of order. However, proceedings in the original suit in the trial court will continue. List in the week commencing 8th February, 2010.” 4. As such, no useful purpose will be served if the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. remains pending in this Court. With the aforesaid direction, the matter is disposed of. It is, however, clarified that any observations or comments expressed by this Court in this case shall not have any effect on the case, which is pending before the Family Court, which will be decided on the strength of its merit alone. 5. No order as to cost. 6. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 9.9.2010 Rathour