IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1035 of 2011 Ravinder Singh S/o Kulwant Singh R/o Village Khanuwala Post Lalhari Tehsil Chachrolli District Yamuna Nagar Haryana. ….…..Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2- Smt. Harvinder Kaur W/o Ravinder Singh 3- Km. Tarvinder Kaur D/o Ravinder Singh O.P. No. 2 and 3/o 94/4 Balbir Road, P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ……Respondents Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 01.03.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court VIth, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2010, Ravinder Singh Vs. Harvinder Kaur and another, affirming the order dated 17.07.2010, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun, in Case No. 578 of 2010, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2 3) By the impugned order dated 01.03.2011, the appellate court has affirmed direction of the trial court to pay interim maintenance @ ` 3000/- per month to respondent No. 2 and 3, who are wife and daughter respectively of the present petitioner. The Magistrate has passed the order under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is affirmed by the appellate court. There is concurrent finding of the courts below. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 Harvinder Kaur is a warden in Doon International School and has sufficient means to maintain herself. However, two grown-up daughters are also living with the respondent No.2. The present petitioner is admittedly the husband of the respondent No.2 and father of the two daughters. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, without expressing any opinion, as to final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Therefore, petition under Section482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15.11.2011 JM