Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This Cr.Misc.petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 20/11/2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.4, Alwar by which, application of the respondent u/S.125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and interim-maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month was awarded to the respondent-wife and Rs. 3000/- in the ratio of Rs. 1500/- each to two minor children i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 was awarded. Petitioner has also challenged subsequent order dated 3/4/2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities on SC/ST) Cases Alwar whereby, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed.
(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has no source of income so as to satisfy the order passed by the court below. He hardly had income of Rs. 1500/- per month which he was earning from the cycle repair shop. It is contended that apart from above recourse, the respondents have also approached the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar filing complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. That court has directed petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- as residence expenses to the respondents. Petitioner was unable to satisfy the order therefore he has been detained in jail. Petitioner has filed application u/S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and he is still agreeable to allow respondent-wife to stay with him. Even when he is ready to keep his wife, amount of Rs. 2000/- was awarded by the Magistrate under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act towards residence expenses cannot be justified to be paid to her.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the misc.petition and submitted that if at all petitioner does not have sufficient income, the only remedy available to him to file an application u/S.127 Cr.P.C. before the court for revision of interim amount of maintenance. Petitioner did not dispute the fact asserted by the respondents that he was into a jewelery business. The impugned-order therefore does not call for any interference.;