Judgment : This revision by the husband, is directed against the order of interim maintenance passed in M.C. No.18 of 1994, on the file of Family Court, Madurai, dated 29. 1994, directing the petitioner/husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.500 p.m., and to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000 within one week towards arrears of maintenance. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Doraisamy, contended that this order is not valid in law, in view of the fact that Sec.125, Crl.P.C, does not contemplate anything about interim maintenance and that the order of maintenance could be passed, only on proof of the husband neglecting the wife, and the wife is unable to maintain herself, and since admittedly, there was no enquiry, the order directing interim maintenance could not be held to be valid in law, and as such, the same is to be dismissed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Jayamangalam, contended that the order of court below awarding interim maintenance is well within the powers of the Family Court, inasmuch as the court below is constituted under the Family Courts Act, under Sec.7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court is empowered to order interim maintenance. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the respondent cited two decisions: (1) Chitti Prasad Rao v. Chitti Asiripolamma and another, (1993)1 Crimes. 1075 and (2) Minor Anu v. Bajan Lal Sharma, (1994)2 D.M.C. 338. In the former decision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri v. Govind Singh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 98, held that in appropriate cases, the Magistrate can order interim maintenance, during the pendency of the enquiry under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. 4. In the latter decision, the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, observed as follows: "As interim order of maintenance allowance in the proceedings under Sec.125. Crl.P.C. is interim in nature. By such interim order rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided at all. Object of such relief is to grant maintenance to wife, children or parents, who are unable to maintain themselves and are dependent on the husband, father and son/daughter as the case may be. Crl.P.C. is interim in nature. By such interim order rights and liabilities of the parties are not decided at all. Object of such relief is to grant maintenance to wife, children or parents, who are unable to maintain themselves and are dependent on the husband, father and son/daughter as the case may be. The primary object is to prevent starvation and vagrancy, It is a measure of social justice and to compel a man to perform his moral and legal obligation, he owes to society in respect of his wife, and minor children so that they are not left beggared and destitute on the scrap heap of the society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy and immorality and crime for their subsistence." On the strength of these decisions, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the order passed by the Family Court is legal and unassailable. 5. In this case, there is no dispute in regard to the fact that the respondent/ wife is the legally wedded wife. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned in this revision was passed without any enquiry. But on a perusal of the judgments cited above, it is clear, that Family Court is empowered to order interim maintenance, in view of the pitiable condition, in which the wife if placed. So, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order of Court below. 6. However, I may point out one infirmity found in the order of court below, viz., under Sec.125, Crl.P.C, a sum of Rs.500 alone can be claimed as a maximum maintenance, by a single claimant. But the petition presented before the Family Court shows that the wife claimed Rs.800 per month., i.e., more than the amount prescribed under Sec.185, Crl.P.C. So, if at all the Magistrate/ Judge of the Family Court decides the case in favour of the wife, she can order “maintenance only upto Rs.500. So, it seems that a sum of Rs.500 p.m., has been awarded by the Family Court, as interim maintenance, would be on the basis of the maintenance claim made by the respondent/ wife at Rs.800. This may be proper. 7. So, it seems that a sum of Rs.500 p.m., has been awarded by the Family Court, as interim maintenance, would be on the basis of the maintenance claim made by the respondent/ wife at Rs.800. This may be proper. 7. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioner, that during the pendency of this revision, the petitioner/ husband had paid a sum of Rs.300 p.m. Considering the said submission, the order of Family Court, granting interim maintenance at Rs.500 p.m. is modified into Rs.300 p.m. 8. Except the abovesaid modification in the quantum of interim maintenance, in other respects the revision is dismissed. The Family Court is directed to continue the enquiry and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Registry is directed to send back the records immediately.