Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Gaurav ... Petitioner Versus Mrs.Sushma and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge herein is to the order dated April 23rd, 2011 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad whereby, application filed by respondents for grant of interim maintenance was allowed and respondents were granted Rs.2500/- and Rs.2000/-, respectively, per month as interim maintenance on an application filed by them under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Sushma - respondent-wife and her minor daughter filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C') to seek maintenance. Along with the application, they also filed an application to grant them interim maintenance till the decision of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. It was pleaded on their behalf that respondent No.1 was married with Gaurav - petitioner. He is doing whole-sale business of selling of clothes in District Bagpat (UP) and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, apart from getting monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of letting out various shops and rooms at Nayagaon, District Baghpat. It was further pleaded that he is also earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing agricultural work, whereas, She has no source of income to maintain herself. 3. Gaurav - petitioner filed reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well as reply to the application for Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2011(O&M) [2] interim maintenance. It was pleaded by him that he is working as a sales-man in a firm and earning Rs.3000/- per month. He also showed his willingness to maintain the respondents as per his status. 4. The application under section 125 Cr.P.C is yet to be disposed of. For that, parties shall be given opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. It is not a stage to evaluate the evidence of the parties thread-barely as the learned District Judge, has only allowed the interim maintenance to the wife. 5. So far as the quantum of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2500/- and Rs.2000/- is concerned, such an amount cannot be said to be on higher side looking into the rising prices of the day-to-day basic necessities. The petitioner being husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 cannot wriggle out the moral responsibility to maintain them. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Court below is proper and justified. No interference is called for. September 23, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE