The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the husband to provide proof of income and turnover for calculating maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

ORDER :

1. By way of present application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court and Sessions Court No. 17, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2019 and order dated 10.06.2019 passed below Exh.13 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22, Ahemdabad in Domestic Misc. Application No. 191 of 2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was married with the respondent no. 2 and one daughter named Khushi was born out of the said wedlock. It is the case of the respondent no. 2 husband that applicant is working as teacher in a school and getting a salary of Rs. 13,000/- after the normal deductions and her daughter Khushi got admission in P.D.U. College, Gandhinagar, wherein fee is Rs. 1,17,000/-. The applicant has also filed an application before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance whereby the learned Family Court granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to her daughter Khushi, but it is very difficult for her to manage the expenses of maintaining the family and her daughter’s study. Hence, she has filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking interim compensation under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this application is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, party-in-person as well as learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. D.K. Trivedi for the applicant has submitted that the orders passed by both the Courts are contrary to the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that both the learned Courts have committed a grave error while passing the impugned orders. The learned Courts below ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter while deciding an application under section 23(2) of the Act. In the proceedings, under section 23(2) of the Act, what is required to be seen is husband’s own income and wife’s source of income. In the proceedings like maintenance, the Court exercises a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendent lite but the discretion of judicial and neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is to be guided on sound principles of matrimonial law and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and having regard to the object of the Act. The Court would not be in a position to judge the merits of the rival contentions of the parties when decided in application for interim alimony and would not allow its discretion to be fettered by the nature of the allegations made by them and would not examine the merits of the case. It is submitted that it is a bounded duty of the Courts below to ask the husband to submit a proof as regard his monthly income or the turnover of his companies as per section 106 of the Evidence Act, so as to come to a proper calculation of quantum of maintenance. The said exercise has not been done in the present case that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by both the courts. In support of his submission learned advocate Mr. Trivedi referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022.

5. The respondent no. 2 Mr. Anuj Vinodbhai Bhatt appears as party-in- person has objected to this application and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Court as well as