The duty of a husband to maintain his wife and provide alternative accommodation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is upheld based on evidence of income and living arrangements.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the Petitioner being the husband of opposite party under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2016 thereby affirmed the order dated 28th June, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur in Misc. Case No. 141/2011 whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on contest and further directed the present Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/-per month as maintenance for the Opposite Party and Rs. 4,000/-per month for the cost of alternative accommodation of Opposite Party so long as the Petitioner could not provide a suitable alternative accommodation to the Opposite Party and further directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-per month to the Opposite Party/wife from the date of the order by 7th of every succeeding month failing which the Opposite Party is at liberty to execute the order through the competent Court.

2. The brief facts are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case as under:

The Opposite Party is a legally married wife of the Petitioner and their marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu Rights and Customs on 27.11.2009. After marriage, their conjugal life had been started at Majhitola, Adityapur, P.S. Adityapur, District – Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand. But from the very beginning, the opposite party started to claim reside separately from other in laws in a separate flat or residence. Her proposal was denied by the Petitioner as he has also duty towards his other family members. As such, disputes and differences started between the husband and wife and increased gradually. Ultimately on 04.10.2010, the parents of Opposite Party in the name of Durga Puja festival took her to parental house. She did not contact till 10.12.2010 and when the Petitioner went to bring her back, she did not come back to her matrimonial house. Having no other alternative, the Petitioner had to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand being Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2011 and the same was decreed on contest in favour of the Petitioner/husband on 30.03.2016 thereby the learned principal Judge directed the Opposite Party to go to the society of the Petitioner/husband without any space of time. During pendency of the said application, the opposite party/wife also preferred an application for decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Additional District Judge, Durgapur on the several grounds and the same was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 157 of 2014 but the same was finally withdrawn on 18.04.2015 by the Opposite Party/wife for the reasons best known to her. Soon after receiving the summons of restitution of conjugal rights, the Opposite Party lodged an FIR under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the Durgapur Police Station on retaliation and the same was registered as Durgapur Police Station Case No. 201 of 2011 dated 01.06.2011. At the same time, she also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act being Misc. Case No. 141/2011 and the said case was finally decided on contest on 22nd March, 2012 thereby the learned Magistrate allowed the interim maintenance to the Opposite Party/wife at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-per month.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said interim order dated 22nd March, 2012, the Petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Special Court –cum-Learned Additional Sessions being Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2012. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge modified the amount of in