IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1811 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.1.2010 Prem Sood …. Petitioner Versus Suman Sood and others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. In terms of the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, respondent No.1 wife and respondent No.2 son have been granted interim maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.500/- per month respectively. The petitioner aggrieved against the same has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in reply (Annexure P2) to the application filed under Section 125 CrPC by respondents No.1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner is willing to keep his wife and son. Besides, in the proceedings (Annexure P3) recorded at the Women Cell, Police Station City, Barnala, it was found by the Sub-Inspector, Incharge Women Cell that the parents of respondent No.1 did not want to rehabilitate their daughter in the Crl. Misc. No. M-1811 of 2010 [2] house of the petitioner but the petitioner was ready to rehabilitate his wife on any condition. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that only interim order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala. The stand as taken in the reply (Annexure P2) as also in the proceedings (Annexure P3) before the Women Cell, Barnala are to be established by bringing them on record by leading evidence and thereafter considered by the Court. The procedure provided is not to be short-circuited and circumvented by ready resort of initiating proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 21, 2010 amit