- (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 16.6.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2009 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. to O.P. No. 2 and Rs. 3,000/- p.m. each to the minor children. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never neglected or refused to maintain O.P. No. 2/wife and his school going children. That the petitioner has written letter to the institute/school where the children are studying seeking the details of the fees and offering to pay their school fees which he has paid as per Annexure-10. It is argued that O.P. had filed the petition for Interim maintenance mainly on the ground that she is unable to pay fees of the children. That the petitioner has deposited the said fees as per Annexure-4 on various dates and also paid Rs. 76,000/- and Rs. 26,000/- by way of drafts in the account of O.P. Learned counsel has also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and submitted that the Apex Court has propounded that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted as a measure of social justice to ensure that the dependents are not forced to live a life of vagrancy or destitution. That it would be evident that the petitioner has been providing for the maintenance and the school fees and has been discharging his social and moral obligation. That the conduct of the petitioner shows that he has not neglected or refused to provide the expenses to O.P. and his children. That the order of ad interim maintenance has been passed without appreciating these facts and the amount fixed is exorbitant and excessive. It is further submitted that petitioner is a disabled person and he incurs expenses for his treatment as well as for the treatment of his aged father. That the petitioner has to pay monthly installments to repay the loan. That the O.P. No. 2 is residing in the quarter at B.I.T., Mesera and she is gainfully employed. That she has not denied that she does not have any source of income. In the attending facts and circumstances the quantum of ad interim amount deserves to be modified and reduced.
(2.) Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 has fairly conceded that in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner the principle and guidelines for passing order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is laid down and the primary object and scope is to ensure that the dependants are not forced to lead a life of vagrancy and destitution. That the petitioner is an Agriculture Engineer and is drawing a salary of Rs. 46,000/- which has not been controverted and the petitioner has not been able to establish that O.P. No. 2 is gainfully employed or she has sufficient source of income or means to provide for and meet her daily expenses i.e. fooding, clothing and other daily needs required by her and her children.
(3.) Heard. Perused the impugned order. The proviso of Section 125 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate or the court to grant monthly allowance as interim maintenance. No doubt the petitioner has paid the fees of the children and as a father it is his moral duty to do so. Apart from the school fees the O.Ps. require monetary assistance to meet the expenses of fooding, clothing, etc. for herself and her children. The petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs. 46,000/- p.m. which is admitted by him thus, the order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. to O.P. and Rs. 3,000/- p.m. each to the minor children is not exorbitant or excessive.;