Criminal Misc. No. M-30591 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-30591 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 01, 2011 Ravi Mohan ... Petitioner Versus Rashmi and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge herein is to the order dated November 24 th, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, affirming the order dated April 28 th, 2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, whereby, interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- was awarded to each of the respondents, on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `CrPC'). 2. Respondents - Rashmi and Alo Keshwar, wife and minor son of the petitioner, respectively, filed the application under Section 125 CrPC to seek maintenance allowance. It was pleaded by them that the petitioner is running a show room of electronic goods and earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. They have no source of income to maintain themselves. 3. Petitioner Ravi Mohan filed reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C pleading that he is doing casual labour work and does not own any shop of electronic goods. 4. The marriage is not disputed and as such, the petitioner cannot escape his liability to maintain his wife and minor son. 5. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, this Criminal Misc. No. M-30591 of 2011(O&M) [2] Court does not concur with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The husband being able bodied has the potential to earn. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted that he is doing labour work, even then interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month for each of the respondents, does not seem to be on the higher side to keep the body and soul together. Further more, 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 only the interim maintenance has been granted to destitute wife and son. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are proper and justified. No interference is called for. 7. Dismissed. November 01, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE