JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is the opposite-party in Original Maintenance Case No.259 of 2015, is aggrieved of order dated 23.03.2017. By this order he has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to his daughter, as interim maintenance. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be based upon the capacity of the husband to pay and not to cause extreme hardship to the husband. 3. Briefly stated, marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent-wife on 09.03.1990 and from their wed-lock two children, one son and one daughter have been born. Both the children have attained the age of majority and both are pursuing their studies. It is stated that the petitioner''s daughter namely, Ishani is studying and preparing for competitive examination at Bangalore and the petitioner''s son namely, Ishan is admitted at Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore. The respondent No.1-wife has pleaded that she and her children are totally dependant on the petitioner and they have no other independent source of income. The petitioner, however, has asserted that his wife who is a practicing lawyer is earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. The petitioner has further asserted that his take-home salary is only about Rs.34,000/- per month and presently he is under suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even subsistence allowance to the petitioner has not been paid by his employer. 4. The documents produced by the petitioner disclose that the petitioner''s salary is about Rs.54,000/- per month, out of which Rs.5,000/- is deducted in his GPF account and Rs.13,500/- is paid towards the loan availed by him. After the aforesaid deductions and income-tax etc. he receives about Rs.34,000/- per month. His wife, in her petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has claimed Rs.80,000/- for maintenance of herself and her daughter. The petitioner has not pleaded that he is contributing towards expenses for education of his daughter or he is helping his wife for her maintenance. All that he pleads is that he does not have sufficient income to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to his wife and his daughter for their maintenance. The petitioner has not pleaded that he is contributing towards expenses for education of his daughter or he is helping his wife for her maintenance. All that he pleads is that he does not have sufficient income to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to his wife and his daughter for their maintenance. In view of the petitioner''s own admission, as reflected from the documents filed by him vide Annexure-2, whether subsistence allowance is being paid to him or not is irrelevant and he, in my opinion, must comply with the order dated 23.03.2017 directing him to pay the aforesaid amount to his wife and daughter. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.03.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.