The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an unemployed spouse to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, emphasizing the prevention of vagrancy and destitution for women and children.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of two orders dated 21st December, 2016 and 29th March, 2017, both passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Hindu Marriage Petition No.172/2016, inter alia, pertaining to grant of interim maintenance and attachment of salary respectively in favour of the Respondent Wife.

3. The relevant facts required for appreciating the controversy and lis between the parties, are as follows:

The Petitioner and the Respondent's marriage came to be solemnized on 30th May, 2015. After marriage, the Petitioner and the Respondent cohabitated together at Wani. The Petitioner is working as Government servant in the office of the Collector, Chandrapur. The Respondent-Wife is a home-maker. The Petitioner and the Respondent-Wife have one daughter, aged 4 years. It is the Petitioner's case that the Respondent-Wife used to quarrel with the Petitioner and make false allegations against him and his family members. After birth of the daughter, the Respondent-Wife resided with the Petitioner for some time. On 14.9.2015 the Respondent-Wife filed a Police Report against the Petitioner and left the Petitioner's house permanently with all her belongings. The Petitioner has stated that the Respondent-Wife used to harass and threaten him. The Respondent-Wife filed Application bearing M.C.A.No.155/2015 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'D.V. Act') before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur on 16.11.2015. On 30.9.2016 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur also decided application bearing M.C.A.No.155/2015 filed by the Respondent-Wife and directed grant of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. In retaliation, the petitioner filed Divorce Petition on 14.7.2016 against the Respondent-Wife being Hindu Marriage Petition No.172/2016. On 6.9.2016 the Respondent-Wife filed application for grant of interim maintenance against the Petitioner in the aforesaid divorce proceedings. This application came to be listed as Exhibit-9. The Petitioner contested this application but, the learned Trial Court by its order dated 21.12.2016 directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the Respondent-Wife. On 27th January, 2017 the Judicial Magistrate First Class passed further order below Exhibit-19 in the said M.C.A. No.155/2015 directing deduction of the amount of Rs.4,000/- from the salary of the Petitioner. Thereafter, further order came to be passed on 29th March, 2017 directing deduction of the amounts from the salary of the Petitioner including the maintenance amounts ordered earlier.

4. The present petition, therefore, lays a challenge to the orders dated 21st December, 2016 and 29th March, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur in Hindu Marriage Petition No.172/2016.

5. Shri Ashish Kadukar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order did not take into account the evidence placed on record and as such, was arbitrary and highhanded as against the Petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and set aside, as the same was non-reasoned, non-speaking and cryptic order passed without application of mind by the learned Judge. He submitted that the Respondent-Wife could not produce any documentary proof and/or evidence relating to the income of the Petitioner and, therefore, the learned Trial Court grossly erred in deciding the quantum of interim maintenance, which came to be awarded. He submitted that the Respondent-Wife was an educated and qualified person inasmuch as she was a diploma-holder in Education and, therefore, was able to maintain herself. According to the Petitioner, this fact ought to have weighed with and considered by