IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 1208 Of 2010 In Misc. Application No. 831 of 2011 Devendra Mohan S/o Brijmohan R/o Village Thunda Post Chamkotkhal, Patti Udaipur, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, Pauri Garhwal ………………..Petitioner Versus Smt Anju Devi W/o Devendra R/o Village & Post Padampur (Sukhro) (Shyamlal Bagicha) Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal ……….Opposite Party Shri Lalit Tiwari, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri B.S.Parihar, Advocate, present for respondent Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 12.08.2010 passed by Judge Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 68 of 2010, Anju Devi vs. Devendra Mohan. 2 (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 26.11.2011. Thereafter on 07.12.2005, a daughter was born out of the wedlock. The respondent Anju Devi (wife) has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the Judge Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, claiming maintenance at the rate of ` 10,000/- per month for herself and her daughter alleging that present petitioner (husband) has neglected to maintain them. (4) Marriage between the parties is not denied. It is also admitted to the petitioner that he is a LT Grade Teacher in Government Inter College Palethi. The trial court has observed in the impugned order dated 12th of August 2010 that Devendra Mohan, the present petitioner, (who was respondent before the trial court), has admitted that his salary is ` 29,000/- per month. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court directed that the present petitioner (Devendra Mohan) shall pay ` 5,000/- per month to his daughter and ` 3,000/- per month to his wife (in all ` Eight Thousand per month) as interim maintenance. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this court, to the copy of the application moved under section 125 of Cr.P.C, and pointed out that ` 3 5,000/- per month is the amount for which the application was moved and said amount has been directed to be paid as an interim maintenance, before the parties led their evidence. (6) No doubt the respondent has prayed for ` 5,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and ` 5000/- per month for her daughter. Impugned order shows that the trial court has directed only ` 3000/- per month to be paid to the wife (Anju Devi). Out of ` 29,000/- per month which is admitted salary of the petitioner the amount directed to be paid to the wife as interim maintenance can not be said to be unreasonable from any angle. As far as the maintenance of ` 5,000/- per month to the daughter is concerned, the trial court has observed in the impugned order that the petitioner himself told the court that he is ready to pay said amount to his daughter. (7) In the above circumstances, this court finds no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed . (Misc Application No. 831 of 2011 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.19.02.2011 N.P 4