Order The petitioner has preferred this Cr. Revision for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 102 of 2006 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to his wife O.P. No. 2 and Rs.1,000/- to her minor daughter O.P. NO.3 per month as interim maintenance till the disposal of the case and further to pay Rs.2,000/- being the litigation cost in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. 2. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was initiated on the instance of the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 against the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the O.P. NO.2 was married to the petitioner on 14.11 .2004 at Jamshedpur but after marriage when she came to her matrimonial home, it was alleged that the petitioner-husband and her in-laws started ill-treating and misbehaving her. Yet, out of wedlock she became pregnant in the month of April, 2005 and even-during her pregnancy it was alleged that the petitioner used to perpetrate mental cruelty by extending threat to divorce her. It was further alleged that in the month of August, 2005 the petitioner demanded a substantial sum to be brought from her parental home and pursuant to that she came to her parental home where she delivered a female child. After a month thereafter the petitioner visited and she was taken to her matrimonial home on 5.2.2006 where she found her ornaments made of gold missing which she had kept in "Almirah". She alleged that when she enquired about her jewelleries, the petitioner became furious. It was further alleged that there was none to take care of her and the baby child. Even she was deprived of her food and clothes. The petitioner on her arrival started demanding Rs.5 lakhs and on 22.4.2006 also she was abused and tortured in various ways. The O.P. No. 2 in support of her claim stated that the petitioner had earning of Rs.20,000/- per month and that she required Rs.8,0001- per month to meet out minimum needs of herself and for the daughter O.P0. NO.3 and also Rs.3,0001. being the litigation cost. 3. O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 preferred an ad interim petition No. 24 of 2007 demanding ad interim maintenance on the similar fact as stated in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. NO.3 and also Rs.3,0001. being the litigation cost. 3. O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 preferred an ad interim petition No. 24 of 2007 demanding ad interim maintenance on the similar fact as stated in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and by the order impugned, ad interim maintenance was awarded to the tune of Rs.2.000/- and As. 1,000/- to the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 by the Principal Judge. Family Court 4. Learned Counsel advancing his argument submitted that the petitioner had presented a Matrimonial Suit No. 141 of 2006 before the Principal Judge, Family Court. Jamshedpur under Section 13(1 )(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce against the O.P. NO.2. 5. The learned Counsel with reference to Annexure-3 of the Cr. Revision Petition submitted that the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, while disposing of the bail petition of the petitioner Saheb Singh on 27.9.2006 observed:- "Today this court held reconciliation proceeding between the parties in presence of their lawyers. It was decided that at present informant will stay with her parents and petitioner shall pay Rs.2,0001- per month for maintenance of wife and their child. The parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in a case of maintenance already pending vide Misc. Case No. 102 of 2006 and get the case disposed off at the earliest on the basis of compromise reached today. They have also decided that petitioner shall withdraw divorce case filed against informant and it was also agreed that petitioner shall visit once in a month to see his child." 6. In view of the aforesaid order the petitioner was admitted to bail in Birsanagar P.S. Case No. 162 of 2006 for the alleged offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner had agreed in such conciliation to maintain his wife and daughter by paying Rs.2,000/- per month and in compliance to the above direction he withdrew the divorce case though it was permitted to be withdrawn by putting restriction upon the petitioner from filing another divorce suit afresh in future. The learned Counsel exhorted that the petitioner performed his part. in good faith and has been paying maintenance as per compromise through conciliation but the O.P. No.2, taking advantage of the withdrawal of the divorce suit, refused to withdraw the proceeding initiated on her instance under Section 125 Cr. The learned Counsel exhorted that the petitioner performed his part. in good faith and has been paying maintenance as per compromise through conciliation but the O.P. No.2, taking advantage of the withdrawal of the divorce suit, refused to withdraw the proceeding initiated on her instance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and she filed the petition for ad interim maintenance against the spirit of the conciliation and compromise aforesaid. 7. Advancing his argument, learned Counsel Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal submitted that the monthly income of the petitioner was only Rs.8,000/- as would be evident from Annexure-6 which is the pay slip for the month of June, 2006 in which his designation has been mentioned as 'service delivery' in RT OUTSOURCING SERVICES L TO. and he had joined in the service on 1.8.2004 in grade C2. It would be evidently clear that his home take amount was Rs.7,450/- only and therefore, he was not in a position to part with Rs.3,0001- per month being maintenance amount to his wife and daughter. The petitioner had withdrawn the divorce suit on the ground that O.P. NO.2 would withdraw the proceeding initiated under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance and thereby he had agreed to pay Rs.2,000/per month to his wife for the maintenance of both O.P. Nos.2 & 3 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3, with reference to paragraph Nos. 26 & 27 of the petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C., submitted that the petitioner had been intentionally flouting the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a Bail Petition No. 1196 of 2006 on 27.9.2006 whereby pursuant to conciliation process the petitioner herein had agreed to pay Rs.2,0001- per month for the maintenance of his wife and daughter and also that he would visit to see his minor daughter every month. It was specifically alleged by the O.P. No.2 therein that he had not paid the maintenance amount for the month of January, 2007 and February, 2007 and also for the month of October, 2006, a total sum of Rs.6,000/- and therefore, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, who was defaulter in payment, O.P. NO.2 was not inclined to withdraw the petition initiated for her maintenance and maintenance of her daughter. Though no cross-objection has been filed on their behalf but the O.P. No. 2 reiterated that the petitioner was a man of means having earning of Rs.20,000/- sufficient to part with Rs.8,000/- per month for her maintenance and maintenance of their daughter. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, the petitioner had admitted his monthly earning approximate Rs.8,000/and in support whereof he has filed the pay slip for the month of June, 2006. He was employed in the Grade C2 in Outsourcing Services Limited designated as 'service delivery' and his home take amount was Rs.7,450/- in the month of June, 2006. I have reason to believe that his salary was revisable and no up-to-date salary certificate was filed for consideration when this Criminal Revision was taken up for final disposal. Even if the salary certificate produced by the petitioner is taken to be true for the present, without prejudice to the merit of the proceeding, the petitioner within his competence is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to his daughter for their maintenance as the amount so awarded is meagre and negligible keeping in view of extreme price rise and high time. 10. In the aforesaid premises, I find that the petitioner failed to show any ground to interfere with the impugned ad interim order passed in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in Misc. Case No. 102 of 2006 on 18.6.2007 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur. There being no merit, this Cr. Revision is dismissed.