JUDGMENT 1. - Revisionist has filed this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short 'Cr.P.C.') praying therein that the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur city, Jaipur in appellate jurisdiction setting aside the order of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur city, Jaipur dated 17.12.2009 passed in application no. 17/2009 be set aside. 2. Revisionist is the husband of non-petitioner no.2 and father of the minor child. Revisionists no.2 to 9 are the father, mother, brothers, sisters of revisionist. Non-petitioner had filed a petition under Sections 12, 18, 19, 22 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') for grant of maintenance rent of residence, monetary reliefs, compensation and protection from domestic violence, in the court of ACJM No.10, Jaipur city, Jaipur. 3. Non-petitioner no.2 also filed an application under Section 23 of the said Act in the pending case seeking ad-interim order. 4. Revisionist no.1 did not appear despite service of notices whereas revisionists 2 to 9 who were all his family members living in the same house as revisionist, appeared. 5. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 17.12.2009 dismissed the application filed under section 23 of the 'said Act' by the non-petitioner No.2 on the ground that the reply of respondent was yet to come. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, non-petitioner No.2 preferred an appeal under section 29 of the 'said Act' before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur who was of the view that the trial court could pass exparte order for interim maintenance. After hearing the non-petitioner No.2 and also the revisionists, partly allowing the appeal, learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- Rs. 5000/- to non-petitioner no.1 and Rs. 2500/- to the child Mohd. Farjan) towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application till final disposal of the petition. 7. Aggrieved by the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, revisionist has preferred this revision. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order after hearing both the parties. Farjan) towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application till final disposal of the petition. 7. Aggrieved by the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, revisionist has preferred this revision. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order after hearing both the parties. Detailed and reasoned order has been passed by him thereby providing ad-interim relief to the non-petitioner No.2 and the minor son for their interim maintenance pending disposal of the main petition. 9. The legislation in question is a beneficial legislation and has been brought into force for a specific purpose of protecting women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family. Section 3 defines 'domestic violence' which as provided in sub-section (iv) includes "economic abuse" which in turned includes the deprivation of any economic or financial resources which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom......" 10. Section 23 deals with the interim maintenance which reads as under: "23.Power to grant interim and ex parte orders.- (1) In any proceedings before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper. (2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent." 11. As is clear from above that the Trial Magistrate has been empowered to even pass an exparte interim order under Section 23(2) of the 'said Act', if he is satisfied on the basis of affidavit of aggrieved person under Sections 18,19,20, & 21 or even Section 22 of the 'said Act' against the respondent. 12. As regards the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 7500/- Rs. 5000/- for the non-petitioner wife plus Rs. 2500/- for the son Mohd.Furhan) directed to be paid by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it was argued that the revisionist no.1 is not earning Rs. 30,000/- a month and that the amount of maintenance awarded is on higher side. 12. As regards the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 7500/- Rs. 5000/- for the non-petitioner wife plus Rs. 2500/- for the son Mohd.Furhan) directed to be paid by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it was argued that the revisionist no.1 is not earning Rs. 30,000/- a month and that the amount of maintenance awarded is on higher side. I have considered this aspect of the matter. The revisionist did not bother to even file any document to rebut the affidavit of the non-petitioner. So much so even counter affidavit was not filed. Be as it may, it was an interim order for maintenance of the wife and minor son of the revisionist and parties have right to produce evidence in support of their claims before the trial court. 13. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge no.5, Jaipur city, Jaipur. 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.Revision allowed. *******