The court cannot award maintenance to a person who is not a party to the proceedings.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3-State.

2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.6.2009 passed by Additional Sessions judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer Camp Kishangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') in Criminal Appeals No. 33/2009 (66/2008) and 34/2009 (67/2008), whereby the appellate Court has dismissed Appeal No. 34/2009 (67/2008) filed by the petitioner-husband and partly allowed Appeal No. 33/2009 (66/2008) filed by respondents No. 1-wife and 2-daughter, modifying the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 104/2008, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to Respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2-daughter by the trial Court and the appellate Court has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1-wife; Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 2-daughter Manisha and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 4-son Sushil.

3. The concise facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005) against the petitioner and five others. It was averred in the complaint that the petitioner is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 and there are four children of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. It was mainly averred in the complaint that the petitioner along with five others used to cause domestic violence and they are not paying anything for the maintenance of respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner is working in Railways at Delhi and the respondent No. 1 is living at Kishangarh with her children; the petitioner is not providing any amount on account of maintenance to them due to which, they are facing grave difficulties. Respondents No. 1 and 2 prayed in the complaint along with other relieves that the petitioner may be directed to pay some amount towards maintenance to respondents No. 1 and 2.

4. The petitioner filed reply to the complaint before the trial Court denying the averments made by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the complaint. It was averred in the reply that respondent No. 1-wife had not discharged her duties as wife and she used to quarrel and disrespect the elders; the house in which respondent No. 1 is living is not of her father, but the same belongs to the petitioner himself. It was contended that the petitioner is a low paid employ and earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and he spent this amount on himself, his old aged father and his elder son Mukesh and his wife. It was also contended in the reply by the petitioner that he is ready to keep respondents No. 1 and 2 with him, but they are not ready to live with the petitioner In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed that the complaint filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 may be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court after hearing arguments of the parties, vide order dated 19.11.2008 allowed the prayer for interim maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance as mentioned herein-above. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner as well as respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred appeals under Section 29 of the Act before the learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court after considering the arguments of the parties, vide judgment and order dated 9.6.2009, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and partly allowed the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 and modified the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in terms as indicated herein-above. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment