The court has the authority to modify interim maintenance amounts and direct the trial court to decide on pending applications under the DV Act within a specified timeframe.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The instant revision petitions under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. are preferred by the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora against his wife-Anita Arora and his daughter-Kirti Arora and vice versa wherein the parties are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.A. No. 76/14. Further the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora has also assailed the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.C. No. 60/1/2010.

2. The brief facts stated are that the wife-Anita Arora was turned out from the matrimonial house by the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora on 29.03.2009. Thereafter a complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed on 05.03.2010 by the wife-Anita Arora and the daughter-Kirti Arora in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora wherein the complainants sought financial maintenance as well as an alternate residential accommodation for themselves.

3. In the mean while the wife-Anita Arora moved an application under Section 23 of DV Act for interim maintenance on 25.07.2012 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2013 stating therein that the pleadings have already been completed and six witnesses have been examined therefore, the matter will only be decided after leading of the evidences by both the parties.

4. Further, the wife-Anita Arora and the daughter-Kirti Arora preferred an appeal before the Court of ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS, West District, Delhi against the order dated 27.07.2013 and the learned ASJ disposed of the appeal vide order dated 13.05.2014 stating therein that grant of maintenance may not be possible as the challenge was only an interlocutory order.

5. Subsequently, the wife-Anita Arora and the daughter-Kirti Arora filed a criminal revision petition No. 438/2014 before this Court impugning the order dated 13.05.2014 and this Court by setting aside the impugned order directed the concerned trial Court to take up the interim maintenance application when moved by the wife-Anita Arora and the daughter-Kirti Arora for hearing and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from that day.

6. Consequently, the wife-Anita Arora and the daughter-Kirti Arora while in pendency of the abovementioned complaint case under Section 12 of DV Act being C.C. No. 60/1/2010 filed an application under Section 23(2) of the DV Act on 04.08.2014 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora for interim maintenance.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora did not prefer to file the reply to the said application under Section 23 of DV Act and therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after perusal of the material placed on record vide order dated 25.08.2014 declined the relief of Rs. 10,41,500/- as the same was already spent by the father of the complainant- wife-Anita Arora and directed the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife-Anita Arora from the date of the order till the final disposal of the petition which also includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well and the maintenance qua against the daughter-Kirti Arora was declined as she was working/earning.

8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.08.2014 passed in C.C. No. 60/1/2010 both the parties filled cross appeals under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, (West) Tis Hazari, Delhi. Consequently, the learned ASJ-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide impugned order dated 29.01.2015 dismissed the appeal of the husband-Avinash Chandra Arora for want of merit and partly allowed the appeal of the wife-Anita Arora and the da