VIKASH JAIN, J.:–Learned counsel for the oppose party/petitioner submits that the learned court below has erred in directing payment of interim maintenance in the present case filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C., of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner/respondent no.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to her minor son, petitioner/respondent no.2, despite the amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively, having already been awarded to them under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by way of pendente lite maintenance in terms of the order dated 25.07.2017 in Matrimonial Case No. 301 of 2016. It is further submitted that the learned court below has erroneously proceeded on the submission of the petitioners/respondents that the opposite party/petitioner had an income of Rs. 60,000/- from salary as bank employee, whereas the net salary after deduction was only Rs. 36,558.37 (Annexure-4). 2. Having heard learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner and on consideration of materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 3. The learned court below has considered the various facts and circumstances including the fact that the petitioners/respondents have been awarded Rs. 8000/- by way of pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner has not shown the impugned order suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. 4. It is well-settled that this Court does not sit in appeal over the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope whereof is primarily only to ensure that the learned court below acts within the bounds of its authority. No jurisdictional error in the impugned order has been pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner. 5. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.