[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1494/2006 UMAR MOHAMMED Vs. MUBINA & ORS. Date: 21.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Manu Bhargava for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Gupta for the respondents. **** This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 02.06.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.3, Alwar in Application No. 13/2004, whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 700/- per month has been granted in favour of the respondent wife and Rs. 400/- per month each in favour of respondent No. 2 and 3, minor children of the petitioner from the date of filing of the application i.e. 06.10.2004. The case of the petitioner is that as per settlement, divorce deed (Talaknama) was executed between the parties on 23.12.2004 and in July, 2005 maintenance was deposited by the petitioner for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Sahara Bank, Station Road, Alwar. [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner also shown the Talaknama for perusal of this Court along with the affidavit given by the respondent that she will not claim any maintenance. Therefore, the Court below has seriously erred in not considering the said document which was placed and without considering the written statements and submissions, passed the order impugned dated 02.06.2006 granting maintenance to the respondents which requires interference by this Court. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents disputed the Talaknama and alleged that forged signatures are made on the affidavit and the Talaknama. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the order impugned is interim maintenance order and the petitioner has every right to raise just and legal objections at the time of disposal of application for permanent maintenance. He also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara Vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2002) 7 SCC 518 and submits that the respondent wife and her children are entitled to get maintenance. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 02.06.2006, by which interim [3] maintenance has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 700/- per month to the respondent wife and Rs. 400/- each in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, minor children of the petitioner. I have also perused the judgment referred by the counsel appearing for the respondents. It is not disputed that the interim maintenance order has been passed by the Court below and the petitioner has every right to represent his case before the Court below at the time of disposal of the application for permanent maintenance, but in any case since the respondent wife disputed her signatures on Talaknama and affidavit which can only be verified after adducing evidence before the trial Court, the order impugned at this stage requires no interference by this Court as there is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/