2013 Supreme(Raj) 1179
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J.
Vishal Kaushik - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shipra Kaushik - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 842 of 2010.
Decided On : 3-05-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:N.K. Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vijayant Nirwan, Advocate.
The Court has the discretion to enhance interim maintenance considering various factors such as the husband's income, the standard of living of the family, the wife's earning capacity, the duration of separation, and the reasons for separation. The Court is not required to give reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application, but must record reasons in support of the order passed by it.
Headnote:
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - SECTION 12 - INTERIM MAINTENANCE - ENHANCEMENT - COURT'S DISCRETION - FACTORS CONSIDERED - INCOME OF HUSBAND - STANDARD OF LIVING - WIFE'S EARNING CAPACITY - DURATION OF SEPARATION - REASONS FOR SEPARATION - COURT'S DUTY TO RECORD REASONS FOR AWARDING MAINTENANCE FROM DATE OF APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance from her husband. The Trial Court granted her a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of order. On appeal, the Appellate Court enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 10,000/- per month and made it payable from the date of filing of the application. The husband challenged the Appellate Court's order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provision of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is enacted for social justice and to protect women and children. The object of the maintenance proceedings is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The Court further held that the determination of the fact whether the wife was having any relation with another person, as mentioned in a letter annexed in the revision petition, could only be made by the Trial Court after recording evidence by both the parties and not at the stage of interim application for maintenance. The Court also held that the husband's contention that he was unable to earn sufficient amount was no defence, as he would have to maintain his wife and children even if they were living together.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Court erred in enhancing the interim maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month and making it payable from the date of filing of the application. 2. Whether the Court was required to give reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Appellate Court did not err in enhancing the interim maintenance, considering the husband's income, the standard of living of the family, the wife's earning capacity, the duration of separation, and the reasons for separation. 2. The Court held that there is no necessity for a court to give reasons while describing that the maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application. However, the court must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of the order passed by it.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Appellate Court's order was not illegal or erroneous and did not warrant any interference by the Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.06.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 371/2009, whereby the appeal of the appellant-respondent-wife filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') was allowed and the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 214/2008, by which the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 filed by respondent-wife was allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month was granted to her as interim maintenance from the date of order, was modified in the manner that the amount of interim maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month and the said amount was made payable from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 01.12.2008 instead of date of order.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.12.2008, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 before the Trial Court inter alia stating therein that her marriage with the petitioner-husband was solemnized on 30.01.2006 as per Hindu rites and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by her parents. After the marriage, for sometime the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner-husband and his family members towards the respondent-wife was good, but thereafter, they used to torture, harass and beat her for not bringing sufficient dowry and they used to make demand of dowry. The behaviour of her husband and family members was such cruel, which compelled her to live with her parents and since 14.10.2008, she is living with her parents. She was subjected to cruelty, harassment, beatings and humiliation for and in connection with demand of dowry. She has also lodged a report against her husband-petitioner and his family members in the Mahila Police Station, Ajmer for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC. The income of her husband-petitioner is Rs. 75,000/- per month, hence she prayed for relief under Section 17- right to reside in a shared household; under Section 18-protection order; under Section 19-residence orders; under Section 20-monetary relief to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and under Section 22-compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Along with the said petition, an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 was also filed for grant of interim maintenance.
4. In reply to the aforesaid complaint/application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, the petitioner/husband admitted the marriage with the respondent, but refuted other allegations, i.e. demand of dowry and cruelty. It was contended that the respondent is an educated lady and earning a good salary by doing job in the call center. His monthly income is not Rs. 75,000/-. The respondent has herself left the house and is not entitled for any maintenance.
5. After considering rival submissions of the parties and the evidence adduced, learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.11.2009 allowed the application of the respondent-wife filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and ordered for payment of interim maintenance allowance in terms stated herein-above. On appeal by the respondent-wife, learned Appeal Court vide order dated 11.06.2010 allowed the appeal of the respondent-wife and modified the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- and also made that amount payable from the date of filing of the application instead of date of order passed by the Trial Court.
6. Aggrieved from the order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner-husband has preferred present revision petition, while reiterating the same cont
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
