1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.586/07 Rajesh Kumar vs. Smt. Sharmila & Ors. Date of order : 18/3/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri G.S. Shekhawat for the petitioner. Shri Gajendra Bhawan for the respondent. ****** This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who is husband of respondent no.2 against the order dated 8.5.2007 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur on her petition u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. has directed him to make payment of Rs.1,500/- per month as interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the earlier ex-parte order of the Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back. The learned court below has passed the impugned order afresh in which direction has been given to the petitioner to make payment of maintenance from the date of application filed i.e. 20.7.2005. It is argued that the Court has made a statement that if the petitioner is willing to take 2 her back in the house, she is prepared to go with him. It is argued that the petitioner cannot afford to pay the amount of interim maintenance and that too from the date of application as he is presently under suspension. Learned counsel in support of his arguments cited the judgment of co- ordinate bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar vs. Sushila Devi, S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.216/07 decided on 8.3.2007. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and argued that the impugned order being an interim order, revision petition against such order is not maintainable. It was argued that the petitioner is an employee of the State Government and is working as a driver in the police department and that the quantum of maintenance is not so high as would justify interference of this Court at the interlocutory stage. Having considered the arguments aforesaid, I find that the impugned order indeed is an interlocutory order in nature. Besides the learned court below has simply granted interim maintenance whereas the main 3 matter is still pending before it. The Court in its discretion may also grant interim maintenance or the maintenance, as the case may be, from the date of the application in terms of provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even if the petitioner is under suspension, the fact remains that he is a government servant working on the post of driver in the police department. In my view the trial court has not committed any error of law in directing payment of interim maintenance to the respondent wife. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/