IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 595 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Payal Bidani & another … Petitioners Vs Sumit Bidani … Respondent Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for modifying the impugned order dated 29.03.2008 passed by learned Family Judge, Haridwar (annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) to the effect that the respondent be directed to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to petitioner for maintenance and further whole of the amount granted to petitioner No. 2 be born by him. 2. Brief facts of the case Smt. Payal Bidani filed a case before the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance which was registered as Case No. 101 of 2007. The learned Judge, Family Court vide order dated 29.03.2008 directed the respondent – Sri Sumit Bidani to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- for maintenance of Km. Vaishnavi as she was under the custody of petitioner No. 1 – Smt. Payal Bidani. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, the petitioner preferred this petition before this Court. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the entire material available before me, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, 2 reveals that the petitioner did not produce any document, which may show prima-facie that the respondent – Sumit Bidani is getting Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, the court below was justified in awarding Rs. 2,000/- as interim maintenance. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 6. However, the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar is directed to call both the parties in person and try to reconcile the matter between the parties before the final adjudication of the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further directed that the dismissal of this petition by this Court at this stage will not prejudice the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in deciding the matter for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at this final stage. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.04.2008 ASWAL