The statutory obligation of maintaining a legally wedded wife and the Magistrate's jurisdiction to grant interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner- Sharad Kapoor under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned ASJ-02, Special Judge(NDPS Act), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CA. No. 25/15 titled as Sharad Kapoor vs. Mini Malhotra & Others and the order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate/Mahila Court/East Delhi.

2. The brief facts stated are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 28.04.2007 according to Hindu rites and customs at New Delhi. Thereafter, the marital discord between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, led the respondent No.1 to seek recourse of law by invoking provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent No.1 also filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance.

3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 27.04.2015 disposed of the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- per month to the respondent/complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of the order, i.e. 27.04.2015, and from the date of the order to next two years.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2015 the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

5. Consequently, the learned ASJ-02, Special Judge(NDPS Act), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi after hearing the counsels for the parties passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 whereby directing the petitioner to deposite at least 50% of arrears of maintenance as on date, which shall be a pre condition to the issuance of summons to the respondent and granted 15 days time to the petitioner to comply with the order, failing which the appeal shall be dismissed.

Hence the present revision petition.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has offered Rs.30,000/- per month without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, however, the appeal before the District Court may be heard on merits and the petitioner is ready to deposit/pay the entire arrears at the rate of 30% without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties. He further submits that amount for the maintenance Rs.1,60,000/- per month is extortionate amount and same has to be set aside which is pending before the Sessions Court in appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is working for Hyatt Group of hotels and he is earning more than 6000 Swiss Frank and is working as Senior Vice President in Hyatt Group of Hotels. He has further submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Court is only 50% of payment of arrears which is against the spirit of judgment of this Court in case Rajeev Preenja vs. Sarika & Others; II (2009) DMC 26 therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable as it is an interlocutory order and the present petition does not come within the preview of Criminal Revision petition. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in case Rajeev Preenja vs. Sarika & Others; II (2009) DMC 26.

8. It is an admitted fact coming on record that the main application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending before the Trial Court. The determination of the same will be done by the Trial Court after leading of evidence by the respective parties and on the basis of material documents and income affidavits of the parties.

9. Since the respondent is to be maintained by the petitioner, in the absence of denial of existence of the marriage the petitione