CR No.4547/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4547/2011 Date of decision: 28.7.2011 Sanjay ....................Petitioner v. Anju and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.SP Chahar,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner/husband has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 18.4.2011, passed by District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad whereby on an application under Section 125 Cr.PC moved by the respondent no.1 wife and two minor sons of the petitioner, they have been granted interim maintenance @ Rs.1500/- (to the respondent no.1 wife) and Rs.1000/-each (to both respondent sons) respectively. The first ground on which the impugned order has been assailed is that the respondents- wife and two minor sons- had deserted the petitioner since 15.4.2009 and as such they are not entitled to any interim maintenance. I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation of desertion need not be gone into at the stage of granting of interim maintenance and in my considered opinion the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad has rightly done so. The next ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is that the petitioner is a taxi driver and as such unable to CR No.4547/2011 2 pay the awarded interim maintenance. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondents have alleged that the petitioner is running a Taxi Stand at Jhajjar and running five Tata Sumos under different names and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. On the other hand the petitioner has stated that he is working as a Driver with one Rampat and getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month. Except oral evidence, no documentary evidence has been led by either party to substantiate their allegations. The learned District Judge, Family Court vide impugned order has awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month to respondent wife and Rs.1000/- each to both minor school going sons, which in my considered opinion is just and reasonable as the petitioner does not deny to be husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 and 3 and as such he is legally and morally bound to maintain them. Furthermore, the interim maintenance granted cannot be said to be on higher side. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 28.07.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge