JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri Mohd. Shakir, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and Shri A.M. Kukday, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Sessions Court imposing conditions while allowing the application filed by the petitioner praying for stay to the effect, operation and execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suspended and therefore, is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having the responsibility of maintaining his old parents and this factor is not taken into consideration either by the learned Magistrate or the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has pointed out that in the judgment given in Criminal Revision No. 80/2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that father of the petitioner had filed pursis stating that he was residing separately from his son i.e. the petitioner. Further the petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that he is suspended. 6. In the above facts, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the relevant aspects and has worked out the equities, protecting the interests of both the parties. I see no reason to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.