Interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not require an affidavit in non-ex parte proceedings, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect aggrieved parties from destitution.

Order :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- husband, challenging the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, in Criminal Case No.76/2023 whereby the learned Trial Court while granting interim maintenance directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the respondents from the date of filing of the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-wife, along with her children, filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2005 for the brevity). In her application, the respondent No.1 stated that the marriage between her and petitioner was solemnized on 20.06.2014 and out of the wedlock in question, one son and daughter, i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born. She further stated that from the date of her marriage she was being harassed by the petitioner for demand of dowry and on other grounds also. She further alleged that her brother-in-law used to sexually harass her on various occasions. She asserted that her family members paid Rs.2,00,000/-, however, the non-applicant respondent used to demand Rs.5,00,000/- from her family members. She submitted that she had even lodged a criminal case under Sections 498 A, 406, 354 and 323 I.P.C. against the non-applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Nagaur. By way of the application, she thus prayed for protection from domestic violence, right to residence, compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, and maintenance per month for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for herself, Rs.5,000/- for rent of the house, and Rs.5,000/- each for the applicants No.2 and 3). She even prayed for interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also asserted that the petitioner was having 11 bighas of land as well as earning Rs.40,000/- per month from the work of finance and was also involved in property dealings. In support of her application, the respondent No.1 filed her affidavit and also filed the affidavit in the format as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 ”.

3. The petitioner filed a reply to the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and while denying all the contents thereof stated that it was the respondent, who was causing all the trouble, and in spite of various mediations and all efforts made by the petitioner and his family members, there was no improvement in the behaviour of the respondent No.1. He further asserted that he was doing the work of a labourer and was only having 5 bighas of uncultivable land. He therefore prayed for rejection of the application and even submitted that the respondent herself was earning Rs.15,000/- while working at Bangle Factory, Nagaur, thus was not entitled to grant of any maintenance.

4. The petitioner also filed his affidavit pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra)” and denied working anywhere and also did not disclose his income. He further stated that he was having only 4 bighas of joint family property.

5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application stating therein that the respondent has not filed an affidavit as mandatorily required under Section 23 (2) of the Act of 2005 in Form III, and, therefore, no order could be issued on interim maintenance, and further stated that the application as against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 deserves to be dismissed, a