ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, order dated 08.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur in Case No. Cr. M.A. No. 311/2019 has been assailed. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that the petitioner herein is son of respondents. By way of an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. the respondents have claimed maintenance amount from the petitioner @ Rs. 10,000/- each per month. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that both are old aged persons and have no independent source of income to maintain themselves. Petitioner being their son was under liability to maintain them, but he has failed to discharge his duty. It is further submitted that the petitioner is residing at Jallandhar along with his family members and enjoying luxurious life. His monthly income is alleged to be more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. The respondents have further alleged that not only the petitioner has failed to maintain them, he always uses derogatory and abusive language against his parents. 3. Petitioner is contesting the aforesaid allegations on the grounds that the petitioner is a man of limited means. He has a petty business and his earning is not more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has his own family including wife and children to support. As per petitioner, he has five other brothers and in such circumstances, the respondents cannot lay the entire burden of their maintenance on the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is already paying Rs. 500/- per month to respondents as maintenance in pursuance to the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 4. Along with the application for maintenance, the respondents have also filed an application for interim maintenance. Learned trial Court has ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each to the respondents by way of interim maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 6. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has passed the order on the premise that the petitioner being son of respondents is under moral duty to maintain them, who are stated to be aged 88 and 90 years respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 6. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has passed the order on the premise that the petitioner being son of respondents is under moral duty to maintain them, who are stated to be aged 88 and 90 years respectively. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the disclosure made by the petitioner in his affidavit of assets and liabilities, whereby the monthly income of petitioner has been stated to be Rs. 10,000/- per month. On such basis, learned trial Court has held that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain the respondents. The factum of respondents having five other sons has been brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner should feel privileged to take care of his parents in their old age and as such cannot take shelter of the fact that he has five more brothers. 7. While awarding interim maintenance, the Court has to form its opinion on the basis of material on record. The general principles applicable for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. also applies to the grant of interim maintenance with only difference that at the stage of grant of interim maintenance only prima facie case is to be seen. 8. Reverting to the impugned order, it appears to have been passed by the learned trial Court more on consideration of moralistic view than the legal aspect of it. While considering the income of petitioner at Rs. 10,000/- per month, the learned trial Court has not considered the requirement of the family of the petitioner. The factum of respondents having five other sons could also not be brushed aside lightly especially when there was no averment in the application for maintenance disclosing such fact. The respondents were also silent as to whether they were being maintained by their other sons or not. 9. In the light of above discussion, the award of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- each per month to the respondents is unjustified. The petitioner has to maintain himself besides his wife and two children in a separate household. Taking Rs. 10,000/- as monthly income of the petitioner, at this stage, the award of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to parents is on higher side. 2,500/- each per month to the respondents is unjustified. The petitioner has to maintain himself besides his wife and two children in a separate household. Taking Rs. 10,000/- as monthly income of the petitioner, at this stage, the award of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to parents is on higher side. Noticeably, the respondents have five other sons and it is not their case that they are not being maintained by any of them. Even otherwise, without assigning any reason, the stand of respondents in absolving all their sons from maintaining them except petitioner appears to be unjustified. 10. In result, the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 passed by Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, in Case No. Cr. M.A. No. 311/2019 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is held liable to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to each of the respondents till the final adjudication of the matter. Needless to say that the amount of interim maintenance shall be inclusive of the amount of Rs. 500/- already being paid by the petitioner to the respondents under the orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhoranj. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. 11. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.