The beneficial nature of the provisions for the person who cannot sustain under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the entitlement of the victim to more relief under the Act.

ORDER :

Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the First Appellant Court, upholding the grant of interim maintenance to the aggrieved lady, the male respondent has come up before this Court.

2. Vide order captioned above, learned JMFC, Baijnath, had granted interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month against the demand of the lady of Rs.5000/- per month.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, male respondent challenged the same before learned Sessions Court Dharamshala. Vide the judgment, captioned above, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, did not find any illegality in the order and dismissed the appeal.

4. Now, the male respondent has come up before this Court by way of present criminal revision, on the ground that the lady had cheated him by pretending to be unmarried, whereas, she was married and no divorce had taken place.

5. Even if the grounds taken by the petitioner are admitted to be true, still it is not disputed that he was in physical relationship with the lady. It also remains undisputed that the male respondent is gainfully employed, whereas, the aggrieved lady is unemployed. The provisions of Domestic Violence Act are beneficial in nature to the person who cannot sustain. A perusal of both the impugned orders does not point out towards any illegality or irregularity.

6. In Criminal Appeal No(s). 1656/2016, titled Lalita Toppo Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., decided on 30th October 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of DVC Act, 2005, the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than that is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Given above, the present petition is dismissed. Record is returned.