JUDGMENT Deepak Mishra, J. 1. In this revision the husband petitioner calls in question the propriety of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 181/1994, wherein he has granted interim maintenance Rs. 400/- per month to each of the non-applicants No. 1 and 2, the daughter and son, of the applicant herein. 2. An application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. was filed by the non- applicant No. 3 herein, the wife of the petitioner, for grant of maintenance for herself as well as for the minor children, who were arrayed as petitioners to the application. It was put forth in the petition that she was entitled alongwith her children for grant of maintenance from her husband, opposite party therein, who had refused to maintain them in spite of sufficient means. During the pendency of this application, an application was filed for grant of interim maintenance. The said application was resisted by the husband on various grounds. 3. On consideration of the affidavit and facts the Court below granted maintenance @ Rs. 400/-. However, the wife was refused interim maintenance by the impugned order. Grant of maintenance in favour of the children is the cause of grievance for the father/petitioner. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that while fixing the quanturn at Rs. 400/- the. learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the salary component of the petitioner and also the facilities already provided for by the petitioner for children and their mother. 4. Combating the submission of Mr. Datta, Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the non-applicants, contended that as the learned Magistrate has persued the affidavit and has taken into consideration the income of the applicant herein and fixed the quantum, the same cannot be found fault with. 5. I have perused the impugned order and found the reasons for grant of interim maintenance are quite cogent and germane to the issue. I have been told at the Bar that the children are prosecuting their studies. It is the moral and legal obligation on the part of a father to maintain the children. Differences have arisen in matrimonial affairs shattering the peaceful home where victims are the innocent children. It is the obligation on the part of the father to see that the children are properly reared, educated and become fit for society. It is the moral and legal obligation on the part of a father to maintain the children. Differences have arisen in matrimonial affairs shattering the peaceful home where victims are the innocent children. It is the obligation on the part of the father to see that the children are properly reared, educated and become fit for society. The financial benefit cannot be denied to them more so when the father is engaged as a mechanic in the office of Garrison Engineers, East M.E.S., Ranjhi. This Court by order dated 5.10.1994 while issuing notice directed the applicant to pay Rs. 400/- per month to the non- applicants 1 and 2. It is stated by Mr. Datta that the interim order passed by this Court is being duly complied with and there has been no deviation. The said position is not accepted by Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the non-applicants. On consideration of the entire range of facts, I am of the considered view that the order granting maintenance in favour of the non-applicant/children of the present applicant is not to be interfered with. The amount should be calculated @ Rs. 400/ - per month as directed by the Court below and the same should be deposited before the learned Magistrate within a period of six months in six monthly instalment from today. If any amount has been paid pursuant to the order of the Court, the same should be taken into consideration and deducted. 6. The learned Magistrate would do well to dispose of the main application within a period of six months from today. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.