The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 20 of the Protection of Domestic Violence Against Women Act, 2005, and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying inter alia for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the learned ASJ in a criminal appeal preferred by Petitioner No. 1, husband of Respondent No. 2, and Petitioners No. 2 and 3, sons of Petitioner No. 1, against an interim order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, granting interim maintenance to Respondent No. 2, on a complaint filed by her under Section 12 of the Protection of Domestic Violence Against Women Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act').

2. Vide order dated 24.12.2008, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court had directed Petitioner No. 1 to pay a sum of `5,000/- per month and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 to pay a sum of `2,500/- each per month to Respondent No. 2 as interim maintenance, from the date of the order.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order granting maintenance to Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was partly allowed by the impugned order dated 24.1.2011, wherein Petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay a sum of `2,000/- per month and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 to pay a sum of ` 1,000/- and ` 2,000/- respectively per month to Respondent No. 2. In other words, the Petitioners were collectively directed to pay a sum of ` 5,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2.

4. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that while passing the impugned order dated 24.1.2011, the learned ASJ did not consider the fact that Respondent No. 2 continues to reside with the Petitioners, and that they are bearing all the household expenses. He further states that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act could not have been invoked by Respondent No. 2 for seeking maintenance, as the same can be granted only under or in addition to the maintenance sought under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure , and since Respondent No. 2 has not claimed any maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure , she would not be entitled to seek such a relief under Section 20 of the Act.

5. It may be stated at the outset that the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court is only an interim order which is passed on a prima facie view of the matter. Further, the said order has been modified in the appeal preferred by the Petitioners, by halving the interim maintenance of ` 10,000/- per month granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court to ` 5,000/- to be collectively borne by the three Petitioners.

6. Having regard to the fact that only a prima facie view on the matter has been expressed by the learned MM while granting interim maintenance to Respondent No. 2 and that the impugned order is interim in nature, which has been further modified by the learned ASJ, this Court does not find any patent illegality or arbitrariness, resulting in miscarriage of justice, in the impugned order, in order to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure As regards the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners that as the Petitioners are bearing all the household expenses of Respondent No. 2, she is not entitled to any separate maintenance, the same has been considered by the learned ASJ while modifying the order passed by the learned MM on 24.12.2008 and further, the same shall be a matter of consideration before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of final arguments. Admittedly, pleadings in the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are complete and the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence. At the stage of arguments, the Petitioners would be at liberty to take all the pleas available to them before the learned MM.

7. It is stated by the counsel for the Petitioners that the amount payable by the Petitioners w.e.f. 24.12.2008 is huge and Petitioner No. 1 has in any case, been paying a sum of ` 1