The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific incidents of domestic violence to inculpate the accused under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the wide plentitude of the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court assailing the impugned summoning order dated 5.4.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaushambi and order dated 3.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)/FTC/ACJM Kaushambi under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brevity D.V. Act) in Complaint Case No. 369 of 2021 (Ritu Kumari vs. Virendra Kushwaha and Others) under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

3. Facts culled out from the avertments made in the instant application are that marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 in the year 2019. It appears that owing to matrimonial bickering, respondent no. 2 has moved a complaint dated 24.3.2021 against her husband and in-laws (mother-in-law, father-in-law and two sisters-in-law) under Section 12 of D.V. Act. The learned trial court, vide order dated 5.4.2021, has issued summons against the present applicants and directed the Probation/Protection Officer for submitting his report. In pursuance of the order dated 5.4.2021, the Probation/Protection Officer has submitted inquiry report/formal incident report dated 16.11.2021 in Form-I as required under Rule (5) of Domestic Violence Rules 2006. District Probation Officer in his report dated 16.11.2022 has mentioned the statements of complainant, husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. During pendency of proceeding under Section 12 of D.V. Act, learned court has passed an ex-parte order dated 3.12.2022 under Section 23 of D.V. Act granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per mensem in favour the respondent no. 2 (wife). Having been aggrieved, instant application has been filed assailing the order of interim maintenance dated 3.12.2022 and the summoning order dated 5.4.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that summoning order has illegally been issued in a very perfunctory manner without proper appreciating the facts of the complaint in the light of the provisions as enunciated under the D.V. Act. He has made emphasized on the maintainability of the present application against applicant nos. 4 and 5 who are sisters-in-law of respondent no. 2. As per the averments made in the affidavit, applicant no. 4 is unmarried sister-in-law and doing private job of Nurse at NOIDA, however, applicant no. 5 is married and living separately with her in-laws. It is further submitted that learned court below has illegally assumed the income of the husband (applicant no. 1) and granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per mensem without any justification. The applicant no. 1 has no sufficient source of income to comply the order passed by the court below. It is further submitted that applicant no. 1 is willing to keep his wife/respondent no. 2 with him, however, she herself deserted the society of applicant no. 1 and refused to live with him. It is next submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court is illegal and unwarranted under the law and tainted with regularities, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and contended that on the face of record, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of offence under D.V. Act cannot be ruled out. He has supported the summoning order dated 5.4.2021 and the order of interim maintenance dated 3.12.2022. It is next contended that considering the desertion of the respondent no. 2, learned trial court has rightly passed the ex-parte order under Section 23 of D.V. Act in absence of applicant no. 1 who has deliberately ignored the court proceeding despite the service of notice. The interim maintenance gr