IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-1297 of 2010 Date of decision : 18.1.2010 Satpal … Petitioner Versus Kaushalya Rani and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioners. Sabina J. The petitioner-Satpal has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka and further to set aside the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1 was running a school and was capable of maintaining herself. The amount of maintenance allowed by both the courts below was on a higher side. The petitioner was merely working as a Granthi in a Gurudwara. Admittedly, the petitioner was married with respondent No.1 on 13.3.2003 and respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock. The case of respondent No.1 was that she along with her minor daughter had been thrown out of the matrimonial home. Efforts made regarding reconciliation had ultimately proved futile. Respondent No.1 had no independent source of income and thus, was unable to maintain herself and her minor child. Section 125 has been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to safeguard the interest of deserted wives and children. The object of the said provision is to protect the deserted wives and children from vagrancy. The provision has a social object to achieve and thus, cannot be said to be punitive and is rather remedial. Crl.Misc.No.M-1297 of 2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any material on record to substantiate his plea that respondent No.1 was running a school and thus was capable of maintaining herself. Both the courts below have observed after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record that the respondents were unable to maintain themselves. It was the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and child. The courts below have allowed Rs.1000/- as interim maintenance to the wife and Rs.500/- as an interim maintenance to the minor daughter. The said amount of maintenance cannot be said to be on higher side in these days of high prices. Hence, no interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 18.1.2010 sd 2