IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1008/2010 Banwari Singh Panwar Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Date of order : 20/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri N.S. Shekhawat for Mr. M.K.Kaushik for the petitioner. ****** This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order 10.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur City, Jaipur was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondent wife was allowed. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 10.6.2009 while allowing the application of the respondent wife filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directed the petitioner husband to pay to the respondent wife a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as interim maintenance from 1st June, 2009 on or before 10.7.2009 and shall continue to pay the same on or before 10th of every month. Dissatisfied therewith, the petitioner husband filed an appeal for setting aside the order granting interim maintenance, while the respondent wife also filed an appeal for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate. Learned Appellate Court while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner husband, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent wife and enhanced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 1000/-p.m. to Rs. 2000/- p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below had no justification in passing the orders, granting interim maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner husband has always been ready and willing to to take his wife with him but the wife is deliberating staying away from him. It is contended that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has relied upon the report of the Protection Officer, whereas before submitting the said report either any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner husband nor his statement was recorded. Objections submitted to that report were not duly considered by the said Court. It is contended that the respondent wife in her application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had merely requested for payment of a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as interim maintenance, whereas the learned Appellate Court has ordered for payment of Rs. 2000/- per month as interim maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner husband is merely working as Clerk on private basis and he has hardly any means to pay such an amount and, therefore, the order granting maintenance of Rs. 2000/- p.m. is highly unjustified. It is further argued that no discussion whatsoever has been made in the impugned orders, as to why the respondent wife was not ready and willing to reside with the husband. In this back-ground, learned counsel argued that the appellate Court has erred in law in enhancing the amount of maintenance. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions and have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Courts below. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent wife herself had made a prayer for payment of Rs. 1500/- p.m. as interim maintenance, and therefore, the Appellate Court could not have granted Rs. 2000/- per month, cannot be accepted because what is evident from the prayer clause of the application is that the respondent wife has prayed for grant of Rs. 1500/- as against residential charges for room and kitchen and that lastly she has prayed for grant of Rs. 20000/- per month for for maintenance and medical treatment etc. Learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the respondent wife has taken note of day to day requirements, food, treatment and other necessities of the respondent wife and has ordered for payment of Rs. 2000/- per month as interim maintenance. The Appellate Court was also informed of the fact that the petitioner was working as Clerk and was also engaged in property business and his monthly income was between 20 to 25 thousand. Thus, in any case the amount of Rs. 2000/- per month that has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner husband to the respondent wife cannot, in any manner, be said to be excessive or unjust. The question, whether or not the respondent wife has any justification for staying separately and not attending the petitioner husband is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Court below when the application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act is finally decided. The payment of Rs. 2000/- per month has been ordered only as interim maintenance. This does not decide the issue in favour or against either of the parties. Question of grant of maintenance would ultimately depend upon the evidence and other material to be produced before the Court below. The amount of maintenance can be more than what has been granted now and it may even be reduced. However, I do not find any such irregularity, illegal or impropriety in the orders passed by the Courts below so as to warrant interference by this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi