Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Rahul Sanadhya & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sakshi & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7101 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2022
Domestic Violence Act - Interim Maintenance - The court upheld the trial court's order directing the petitioner to make payment of interim maintenance to the respondent under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and restrained the petitioners from indulging in any kind of domestic violence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to challenge the trial court's order directing the petitioner to make payment of interim maintenance to the respondent under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and restraining the petitioners from indulging in any kind of domestic violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no adverse order had been passed against the petitioners except for the direction to refrain from domestic violence. It held that any objection to the petitioners' impleadment as respondents could be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The court also deemed the direction for interim maintenance to be just and legal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the trial court's order under the Domestic Violence Act, including the direction for interim maintenance and the restraint from domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, which allowed for the direction of interim maintenance and the prevention of domestic violence. It emphasized that objections to impleadment could be raised at the trial court.
Final Decision: The miscellaneous petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the stay application was rejected.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners herein for assailing the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned aCJM, Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.54/2021 whereby, the trial court accepted the application of the respondent Smt. Sakshi wife of petitioner Rahul Sanadhya and directed him to make payment of interim maintenance to her to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month under the provisions of the Domestic Violence act and also restrained the petitioners from indulging in any kind of domestic violence with Smt. Sakshi.
2. Learned counsel Shri Saluja submits that there was no justification for the trial court to have entertained the proceedings under the Domestic Violence act against the petitioners other than Rahul Sanadhya. He thus urges that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and, on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that no adverse order has been passed by the trial court against the petitioners Nos.2 to 6 except for a direction that no domestic violence shall be conducted with the respondent Smt. Sakshi. In case, any of the petitioners is aggrieved by his/her impleadment as a respondent in the application filed by Smt. Sakshi, such objection can be raised before the trial court who would be required to consider the same at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The direction given by the trial court in the impugned order to the petitioner No.1 Rahul for making payment of Rs.5,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance to the respondent is, by no stretch of imagination, unjust or illegal.
4. Hence, the misc. petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay application is also rejected.
The court upheld the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act regarding interim maintenance and prevention of domestic violence, emphasizing the legality and justness of the trial court's order.
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 Vio....
Limitations under Section 468 of the CrPC do not apply until there is a breach of an order issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief to aggri....
A wife must establish a prima facie case of domestic violence to be entitled to interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, considering both parties' financial statuses.
The court emphasized the need for a cautious approach in cases of misuse of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and highlighted the requirement for the allegations to constit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
