JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.05.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has directed an interim maintenance in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to be paid to each of the respondent. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife. The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner seeking maintenance from him before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror District Alwar. The petitioner filed his reply to the said application and denied the contents of the application. During the pendency of the said application, the respondent-wife moved an another application seeking interim maintenance. After having heard the parties, vide order dated 24.05.2010, the learned Judge allowed the application for interim maintenance and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of the respondents as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the said application i.e. 12.10.2009 till the decision of the original application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The only contention raised by Mr. Ashish Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner happens to be a labourer. Therefore, he does not have the means to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents. In order to buttress this contention, he has submitted a handwritten certificate issued by a Sarpanch. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has discussed the evidence. On prima facie basis he has concluded that the respondent No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her child. Therefore, he has directed that an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner is not justified in pleading his inability to pay the maintenance amount. For, he is a young man who can earn sufficient amount to maintain his wife. Moreover, both legally and morally he is duty bound to protect his wife and child. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.05.2010 suffers neither from perversity, nor from any illegality. 6. The petitioner is not justified in pleading his inability to pay the maintenance amount. For, he is a young man who can earn sufficient amount to maintain his wife. Moreover, both legally and morally he is duty bound to protect his wife and child. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.05.2010 suffers neither from perversity, nor from any illegality. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******