JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is finally disposed of with the consent of the parties. 2. This criminal Misc. Petition is directed against the order dated 29/7/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khetri, Jhunjhunu in case no.320/2008 whereby interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/-per month has been awarded in favour of respondent-wife. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent wife filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that on 12.11.2005, marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized. After marriage, petitioner started ill-treating with wife and made a demand of dowry. Respondent-wife alleged that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month therefore prayed for Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Petitioner filed reply denying the averments made in the application by the wife. Trial court, after hearing the parties, awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent wife. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a patient of schizopherenia disease and on account of this disease, he was removed from service of army and not having any other means to maintain himself as he is spending substantial amount on medicines out of the pension which he now gets and therefore, he is unable to pay amount of interim maintenance as directed by the trial court. He further contends that impugned order deserves to be quashed because facts have not been considered as were pleaded. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant contend that amount of Rs. 1500/- is an interim measure and is nominal and negligible and it deserves to be paid to respondent wife so that she can maintain herself. They further contend that over the years, the pension of the petitioner must have been increased to a sizable amount therefore they submit that the impugned order is just and proper. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and admittedly on the basis of averment made and the finding of the trial court, certainly the petitioner was removed from the service of army on account of deficiency/disease pointed out by the petitioner. Be that as it may, in my view, the amount granted by the trial court at Rs. Be that as it may, in my view, the amount granted by the trial court at Rs. 1500/-per month cannot be said to be excessive and appears to be quite reasonable and it will not be difficult for the petitioner to pay the said amount as directed by the trial court as an interim measure. Certainly the pension over the years must have increased to a sizable amount, therefore considering the above facts and circumstances, the order passed by the trial court appears to be just and proper and no interference is required by this courtAccordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. *******