JUDGMENT : H. P. Sandesh, J. Heard the petitioner's counsel and also learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents herein who are the wife and children of the petitioner herein have filed a petition before the Family Court, Dharwad under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000/-. Inter alia also filed an application seeking monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The Court below considered the material on record i.e., contents of the petition and also the objections filed by the respondent-husband and considering his admission that he is getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- from the Society, and apart from that 10 acres of land which came to his share and also having Tractor and he also availed crop loan and taking all these aspects into consideration and also he has contended that he has given 2 acres of land as gift and also sold some portion of the property and constructed the house. All these aspects have been considered while awarding maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of petitioner No. 1 and also amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month each in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, in all, the petitioners entitled to a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order of the Court below, the petitioner-husband has preferred this writ petition before this Court. 3. The petitioner in the petition has contended that the Court below has committed an error in not considering the material on record. The Court below presumed that the petitioner is financially sound and he is able to pay monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which is on the higher side. Further, awarding of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the children is also on the higher side and it requires interference of this Court. The finding of the Court below that the petitioner is having sufficient source of income is incorrect and he is not having any other source of income except getting salary from the Society. It is further contended that his mother is bed ridden and cancer patient and used to spend minimum amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of his salary and also taken huge loans from the Banks. Hence, the very maintenance amount awarded by the Court below is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court. 4. It is further contended that his mother is bed ridden and cancer patient and used to spend minimum amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of his salary and also taken huge loans from the Banks. Hence, the very maintenance amount awarded by the Court below is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court. 4. The petitioner's counsel in his arguments, he contends that interim maintenance awarded by the Court below in all to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the respondents herein is on the higher side and he is getting only Rs. 8,000/- per month from his salary and except salary, he is not having any other source of income. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner, first of all, has not paid any interim maintenance amount in favour of the respondents and he has no locus standi to file the present petition, unless he deposits the amount. The Court below while considering the interim maintenance application considered the objections filed by the petitioner herein and thereafter, passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Court below and the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below is on the higher side. Hence, this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed the order of the Court below. 6. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also respondents' counsel, whether the maintenance awarded by the Court below an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- to the respondents is on higher side as contended by the petitioner. 7. Having considered the order passed on interim maintenance application, in paragraph No. 7 of the order the Court below taken note of the fact that there is no any dispute between the parties with regard to the marriage and also the petitioner has admitted that he contracted the second marriage and further noted in the order that the 1st petitioner is not having any source of income and further it is observed in the order that the respondent/petitioner herein has agreed to pay Rs. 4,000/- but he has not produced any document to that effect. 4,000/- but he has not produced any document to that effect. It is further observed in the order that he has got 10 acres of land for his share and having a tractor and also availed the tractor loan and crop loan and also sold two acres of land which he derived through partition and also sold some of the portion of the property which he got and constructed the house. It is further observed that he is getting agricultural income and other source of income apart from his salary of Rs. 8,000/-. 8. Having considered all these aspects, the Court below awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,500/- each to two children. On perusal of the cause title of the order, in the year 2017, the two children were aged 14 years and 10 years and they are school going children and having taken note of the cost of living and also considering the expenses to be incurred for providing education to two children, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,500/- each to the minor children. Hence, the very contention of the petitioner that the maintenance amount awarded to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- is on higher side cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.