ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.01.2016 passed on I.A. No.2 in Criminal Misc. No.631/2014, which is impugned at Annexure ‘G’ to the petition. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. However, due to certain disputes in their married life, they have been residing separately and in that context the respondent herein claiming that the petitioner herein has failed to maintain her, has filed the petition before the Court below under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the said proceedings the respondent has also filed an application in I.A. No.2 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per month. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has through the order dated 18.01.2016 granted interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order passed by the Court below would contend that the respondent in her petition filed before the Court below itself has admitted to the fact that she was employed as a teacher and in that circumstance when the respondent was in a position to earn and maintain herself, the Court below ought not to have ordered maintenance in the manner as has been done. It is in that light contended that the Court below has committed an error in granting the interim maintenance. The petitioner would establish that the respondent has sufficient income through the evidence that would be tendered before the Court below when the petition is taken up for consideration on the main petition and in that light it is contended that the maintenance as ordered is not justified. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent however seeks to sustain the order passed by the Court below. 5. In the light of the above, a perusal of the petition papers including the order impugned would disclose that the Court below in fact has referred to the averments as made by the petitioner wherein he has contended that the respondent was working as an Assistant Teacher from 31.05.2008 to 31.08.2012. 5. In the light of the above, a perusal of the petition papers including the order impugned would disclose that the Court below in fact has referred to the averments as made by the petitioner wherein he has contended that the respondent was working as an Assistant Teacher from 31.05.2008 to 31.08.2012. It is in that light the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that such employment during the said period cannot be taken note in the circumstance when the interim maintenance is sought for by filing an application in a petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., subsequent thereto when she was not employed. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, neither before the Court below nor before this Court the petitioner has produced any material to indicate that the respondent in fact is employed and has sufficient income to maintain herself. Further, on the other hand it is noticed that the petitioner is an employee in Hindustan Aeronauticals Limited and the salary as is being drawn by him which is undisputed, has been noticed by the Court below. 6. In that circumstance, when the relationship is not in dispute, the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- as ordered by the Court below in any event cannot be considered as excessive so as to call for interference in a petition of the present nature. In that view, the petition is disposed of as being devoid of merits.