1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mrudul Barot for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. S. P. Kotia for respondent No.1, whereas learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent - State being formal party. Perused the record.

2. The petitioner herein is a wife and minor daughters of respondent No. 1. They have preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 587 of 2015 before the Family Court, Bhavnagar under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) for maintenance. They have also preferred an application at exhibit 4 for interim maintenance, pending trial. The provision for interim maintenance is required because of such situation emerging from the present case, wherein though such application was filed on 08.12.2015, the order of interim maintenance was passed only on 23.11.2016 i.e. almost after a year though such applications are to be decided within 60 days as per the proviso 2 of subsection (1) of Section 125 of the Code. By such impugned order, the Family Court, Bhavnagar has awarded Rs.2000/- towards maintenance of wife and Rs.1000/- for each of the three minor daughters. Thereby total Rs. 5,000/- is to be paid by respondent – husband. However, making it clear that applicant shall be entitled to execute either this order or order of maintenance passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Domestic Violence Act’) in Application No. 267 of 2015. Thereby, petitioner is not entitled to have both such amounts. It is undisputed fact that under Domestic Violence Act also total award of maintenance is only Rs.5000/- per month and, therefore, by impugned order, practically the family court has awarded nothing.

3. Therefore, petitioners have challenged such order seeking enhancement of an amount of interim maintenance based upon income of the respondent husband contending that respondent husband does not have to shoulder any responsibility except present petitioners and that respondent - husband is earning good amount and he has in fact disclosed his income in his income tax return as Rs. 3,74,357/-, though his real income is much more than the said amount. Since he has invested Rs. 55 lacs in plot number D2 in Santosa Greenland at Science City road in Ahmedabad and also invested Rs.32 lacs in plot at Juhapura in Ahmedabad in partnership and that he is owning 2000 gas cylinders, which are rented and he is also having 1000 unofficial cylinders, so also crane of laizure and other business at Alang shipping yard, where he is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. It is also contended in the application before the trial court that respondent husband has invested more than Rs. 1 crore in the immovable properties and also procured a residential property by making payment in the form of two cheques of Rs. 2 lacs each and paid Rs. 9.45 lacs in cash.

4. So far as matrimonial dispute between the parties are concerned, at this stage, I do not wish to discuss all those factual details to determine anything on either side, since it would unnecessarily prejudice the trial before the family court, when it is yet to be completed. It is also contended that uncle of the respondent husband is serving in police department and, therefore, they are threatening the petitioners to vacate the premises where they are staying pursuant to the intervention of the competent authority on their complaint. It is also contended that respondent is having income of Rs. 10 lacs from interest and Rs. 20 to 25 lacs from the business of Oxygen gas and he was also having two wheeler and four wheeler and that all relevant evidence is produced with such application. By further affidavit dated 09.03.2017, petitioners has produced copy of documentary list at exhibit 5 produced before the family court, which confirms that petitioner have produced on record of the family court, the LIC policy, documents regarding sale transactions of immovable properties and income tax returns of 3 years, so also details about the