CRM No. M-26325 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-26325 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.10.2009 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Payal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein order dated 26th November, 2008, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh and order dated 7th July, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, awarding maintenance of Rs.2000/- has been impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the maintenance granted by the court below is on the higher side as the petitioner is working as a labourer and earns merely Rs.2500/- per month. According to the counsel, the respondent is already earning Rs.7000/- per month from tailoring work and thus, is not entitled to maintenance from the petitioner @ Rs.2000/- per month. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The trial court granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- CRM No. M-26325 of 2009 2 per month to wife of the petitioner (respondent herein). The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the said order. However, the revisional court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not specifically denied that he had agricultural land and that he had income from selling milk. It, thus, upheld the order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity with the order passed by the court below. His only contention is that the interim maintenance granted by the court below is on the higher side. However, I am of the considered view that maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month cannot be said to be on the higher side. Moreover, only interim maintenance has been granted by way of the impugned order. The case is still pending before the trial court for final adjudication. Thus, there is no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing the impugned order, particularly when no legal infirmity therein has been pointed out by the learned counsel. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 23, 2009 'rajpal'