Crl. Misc. No. M-28461 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-28461 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.9.2011. Smt. Satwanti Devi and others ........Petitioners Vs. Smt. Neetu Bala and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K.Redu, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the application/complaint No. 11 dated 21.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P-8) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The petitioners had earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7544 of 2010 seeking quashing of the complaint in question. However, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to take all the pleas before the Magistrate, where the petition was pending. In these Crl. Misc. No. M-28461 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - circumstances, the present petition, so far as it relates to quashing of the complaint, is not maintainable as the earlier petition on the same cause of action was got dismissed as withdrawn. By way of present petition, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure P-8) whereby the trial court has allowed interim maintenance to respondent No.1. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner No.3 is working as a Lab Technician, Nephrology Department P.G.I, Chandigarh and is getting a salary of ` 20,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the trial court has not committed any error while allowing ` 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 towards interim maintenance as the petitioner No.1 is presently residing with her widowed mother at Jind and has no independent source of income. No ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2011 Gurpreet