JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist/husband against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun in Complaint Case No.1141 of 2017 “Smt. Neetu Vs. Paramjeet", whereby the learned court below under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has directed the husband/revisionist to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to the wife/ respondent No.2. Against the order dated 23.03.2018, the revisionist/husband filed an appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2018, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2018 and the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the trial court was affirmed. Hence, the present criminal revision before this Court.

2. The marriage of revisionist/husband and respondent no.2 – Mrs. Neetu Kainth was solemnized in the year 2004. The respondent no.2 filed the case against the husband/revisionist under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 after a period of 13 years. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.03.2018 has directed the husband/revisionist to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to the wife/ respondent No.2.

3. It appears that the impugned order dated 23.03.2018 has been obtained by respondent no.2/wife, on the premise that the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun had directed respondent no.2/wife to produce the son, namely, Parneet Singh Sagar, so that the parties may be permitted to meet the son. Insofar as, the directions of the court below that the revisionist/husband shall not commit any domestic violence upon the respondent No.2/wife is concerned it is apparent on record that respondent no.2/wife is not residing with the revisionist. Insofar as, the directions of handing over the passports of the complainant/respondent no.2 and her son is concerned, the same could not be passed ex-parte, without affording the opportunity to the opposite side so that it can be ascertain that whether passport of respondent no.2 and her son is with the revisionist/husband and despite her demand, the same has not been given to her.

4. It has also come on record that in the connected matters the respondent No.2/wife and her son are getting Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) as interim maintenance in view of the order dated 06.04.2019.

5. There was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to direct the revisionist/husband to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per month as maintenance to the respondent no.2/wife.

6. Since, respondent no.2/wife and her son are getting the interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, there is no provisions of granting maintenance to the respondent no.2/wife under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an interference is being called for by this Court in the matter.

8. Consequently, the criminal revision is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.03.2018 and 27.04.2018 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun to decide the application under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/husband.