JUDGMENT : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred separate revision petitions bearing Criminal Revision No.1212/2016 against the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar (Raj.) whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent has been partly allowed and the amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- per month and rent has been enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to 10,000/- per month and against the order dated 27.01.2015, whereby the application for interim maintenance has been allowed and Rs.30,000/- has been awarded as interim maintenance to the respondent and Rs.5,000/- has been awarded as rent. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent. 3. The Court below considering the entire material on record awarded Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- per month as house rent to the respondent. 4. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner as well as respondent against said order dated 27.01.2015. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected but the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed and the interim maintenance was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and rent was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 5. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have erred in awarding a huge amount as an interim maintenance. Due to dispute between parties, petitioner has lost his job and is now not in a position to pay the maintenance awarded by the Court. It is further contended that the marriage between petitioner Rajat Sharma and respondent Ruchi Sharma was solemnized on 18.02.2006 at Alwar. Two daughters were born of the wedlock on 06.02.2008 and 07.07.2013 respectively. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 for dissolution of marriage against respondent wife and to counterblast the same, proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was initiated by the respondent. 6. It is contended that the respondent wife is living with her parents so there was no occasion for the Court below to award rent to the respondent and there was no justification for the appellate Court to increase the rent from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. It is further contended that there was no justification for the appellate Court to increase the interim maintenance and rent from that awarded by the Court below. 7. It is further contended that there was no justification for the appellate Court to increase the interim maintenance and rent from that awarded by the Court below. 7. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition. 8. It is contended that the matter pertains to the interim maintenance, the wife is entitled to the amount as would be necessary for necessaries suited to status which the wife would have enjoyed. It is contended that after the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner, the petitioner entered into a compromise and agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and her two daughters. 9. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner is highly placed and his salary was more than one lac of rupees and therefore the amount awarded as interim maintenance does not call for any interference by this court. 10. I have considered the contention. 11. Under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a Magistrate is empowered to award interim maintenance as he deems just and proper. 12. In the present case in hand, the Magistrate has awarded Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance. Considering the fact that the petitioner himself entered into an agreement with the respondent and agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance to her, the order of the Magistrate awarding Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance was just and proper. However, award of Rs.5,000/- per month as rent was not justified as admittedly respondent wife was living with her parents and was not paying any rent. 13. As far as the order of the appellate Court is concerned, the appellate Court held that the income of the petitioner was 1,00,000/- per month. He was paying Rs.27,700/- as instalments of flat and Rs.3,800/- as insurance premium, there was no justification as such before the court below to increase maintenance from Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- when both parties admittedly had earlier entered into a compromise wherein the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent wife. The appellate court has further erred in enhancing the rent from Rs.5,000/- to 10,000/- when it is an admitted case that the respondent is residing with her parents and is not paying any rent. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be modified. The appellate court has further erred in enhancing the rent from Rs.5,000/- to 10,000/- when it is an admitted case that the respondent is residing with her parents and is not paying any rent. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be modified. The order passed by the Court below directing Rs.30,000/- to be paid as interim maintenance is upheld but the order vide which the Rs.5,000/- has been awarded as house rent is set aside. The order of enhancing maintenance and house rent passed by the appellate Court are quashed and set aside. 15. The revision petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. 16. A copy of this order be placed in connected matter.