In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-15852 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:13.7.2010 Nirmala Devi .....Petitioner v. Ravi Kumar .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat and the order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat vide order dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure-P.1) has directed the petitioner to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.700/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing the application. Besides, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as expenses of the proceedings. The petitioner is aggrieved against the said order filed a revision petition which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Cr. Misc. No.M-15852 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondent Ravi Kumar that he is adopted son of the petitioner is absolutely false as the purported adoption deed dated 6.1.1999 was never executed by the petitioner and neither had she taken the respondent in adoption. It is submitted that Prem Singh son of Suraj Mal, the real father of the minor Ravi Kumar has prepared a false adoption deed dated 6.1.1999 so as to show the respondent as adopted son of the petitioner with the intent to grab her two bighas of land which was inherited from her husband. It is submitted that similar adoption deed has been prepared by Prem Singh, the father of the respondent after the third brother of the husband of the petitioner and Prem Singh died. The said Prem Singh prepared an adoption deed in respect of his other son showing him to be the adopted son of the widow of his third brother. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of maintenance as he is 9½ years old and unable to maintain himself. It is alleged that the petitioner has turned him out for the last 8 months and is not looking after him. She is not giving any maintenance; besides, his natural parents are not ready to keep him. The maternal grand-mother of the petitioner is taking care of him whereas it is the duty of the petitioner to look after him. The petitioner has agricultural land and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The registered adoption deed dated 6.1.1999 has been considered by the Courts below to show that Ravi Kumar-respondent is Cr. Misc. No.M-15852 of 2010 [3] adopted son of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said adoption deed by way of a civil suit dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure-P.2). The said civil suit is still pending consideration before the trial Court. In the face of the registered adoption deed dated 6.1.1999 it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have erred in awarding maintenance as the interim maintenance is always subject to final determination of the case on merits. The petitioner in the main proceedings may show that the adoption deed dated 6.1.1999 is not binding on her. However, for the present there is no error of jurisdiction in the order that has been passed by the Courts below. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 13, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*