1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned judgment dated 13th February, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in C.A. No.75/2014, titled as Sh.Prashant Ojha vs. Ms.Shalu Ojha, to the extent it awards maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 13th February, 2015, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), was partly allowed and the maintenance fixed by the trial court at Rs.2,50,000/- per month was reduced to Rs.50,000/- per month by the petitioner to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Act as the Appellate Court felt that this amount would be sufficient, reasonable and appropriate in view of material placed on record and peculiar facts of the matter. The petitioner was directed that in discharge of the arrears of maintenance granted, after adjusting the sum of Rs.10 lac already paid to the respondent, to pay a sum of Rs.4 lac to the respondent in execution proceedings coming up on 24th February, 2015 before the trial court and further to pay a sum of Rs.8 lac to her on 24th March, 2015 and equivalent sum on 24th April, 2015 and clear the arrears by making balance payment on 24th May, 2015.

3. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent on 24th March, 2015 that with great difficulty, the petitioner has only paid a sum of Rs.4 lac to the respondent. The remaining sum of Rs.8 lac was not paid as directed by the Appellate Court till the date of hearing of present petition.

4. The Appellate Court has narrated the relevant facts and details of the previous litigations while passing the impugned judgment in paras 2 to 10 thereof. The same are reproduced as below:-

“2. The case as set out in appeal in brief, is that the parties had married to each other on 20.04.2007 in Delhi. They had stayed in hotel/Executive Farms for few days as the rental accommodation of appellant at E419, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi was occupied by his outstation relatives. On return to the said home, apparently bickering had started very soon between the parties. While the respondent has leveled allegations of harassment, using abusing language, non-cooperation, beatings and having extra marital affairs against the appellant in her petition leading to their separation within a period of four months, the appellant has alleged her to be misbehaved, erratic and wished to live lonely life besides exhibiting depressive nature. The respondent even did not allow the marriage to be consummated. A petition under Section 13 (1) of The Hindu Marriage Act being HMA No. 637/07 was therefore, filed by the appellant before the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi which was dismissed on 03.10.2008 being premature. Another petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the appellant in the District Courts, Patiala House and that is pending. The appellant claims that the petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed by the respondent by way of afterthought and as counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by him. Alleging that the petition suffered from evil intention and attitude of the respondent containing false unsubstantiated facts. The impugned order was passed by Trial Court without considering or recording any of the facts and submissions made by the appellant in his reply. The same is therefore perverse, unreasoned and liable to be set-aside. The issuance of notice of the petition to the appellant without considering Domestic Incidence Report vitiated the entire proceedings and reflects non-application of mind by the court in deciding the case. Neither the factum of domestic violence by the appellant could be established or proved nor same has been r