The court upheld the orders for interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing the pending enquiry and the possibility of modifying the order based on substantiated evidence.

Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.7.2015 passed by the A.C.M.M.-II, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 4200 of 2014 (Neetu Mehrotra Vs. Manoj Mehrotra and others) under Section 23 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and impugned order dated 23.1.2016 passed by A.D.J.-15th, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2015, District Varanasi.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant income is Rs. 60,000/- per annum. The court below on the basis of insufficient evidence calculated that applicant has sufficient means to pay the interim maintenance order under Section 23 of the Act. It was further argued that appellate court did not consider the facts raised by the applicant. Thus, prayer has been made to set aside the order passed by the concerned Magistrate and Appellate Court both.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Appellate Court and the concerned Magistrate both have considered the evidence available on record. Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant requires leading of evidence. Interim maintenance was granted under Section 23 of the Act, which would be granted.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.

6. Perusal of the record goes to show that vide order dated 22.7.2015, interim maintenance against the applicant was granted. An appeal was filed which was dismissed. If the findings recorded by the concerned Magistrate and the appellate Court both are compared with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and also with the evidence available on record, no illegality or infirmity is found in the order passed by the courts below. Enquiry is still pending. There is no dispute between the parties regarding relations of the parties. Plea taken by the applicant in this application requires leading of evidence, which could be done before the concerned Magistrate at appropriate stage. If the plea is substantiated with the evidence during the enquiry, the order passed on the application under Section 23 of the Act may be modified or merged with the final order. Considering the status of the parties and source of the income and also the specific provision provided under Section 20 (2) of the Act, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.