Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
1. This Crl.R.P. has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 25.01.2022 in Crl.A.No.214 of 2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-
VI, Ernakulam.
2. The revision petitioner is  the husband. The 1st respondent is his wife.
3. The wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the D.V. Act') claiming
various reliefs. She also moved an application for interim maintenance under Section 23(1) of the D.V. Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed the
application. In appeal, the Appellate Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for three children together. The said order is
under challenge in this revision petition.
4. I have heard Shri.S.Sreedev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Reji George, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Shri.G.Sudheer,
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The paternity of the children is not in dispute. The petitioner is a Dentist. The petitioner being the father of the children is legally and morally bound
to maintain his children. The only dispute raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding quantum. It is submitted that the petitioner has
now been ousted from the Clinic and he does not have any income. All these matters can be decided in the M.C itself after adducing evidence. All
children are students. The quantum was fixed by the Appellate Court taking into account the requirement of the children and the means of the revision
petitioner. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Appellate Court directing the petitioner to pay monthly rent of
Rs.10,000/- each to his three children.
Hence, this Crl. Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of M.C. itself as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.