J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03 North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No.190/2018, whereby, the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘DV Act’) against order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned MM-02, (Mahila Court) North West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, has been allowed while modifying the order dated

29.11.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 & 4 are wife and sister of respondent No.2 respectively. The respondent No.3 is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is father-in-law of respondent No. 1. The marriage of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.01.2013. Out of their wedlock, a baby girl Saanvika was born on 28.04.2014. On account of certain differences between the parties, on 26.07.2017, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint in CAW Cell (Crime Against Women) North West District, Delhi. In the month of August, 2017, she filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before the learned court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The petitioner and the other respondent in the said petition filed their reply. Vide order dated 29.11.2018, the learned MM directed for a payment of interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and her daughter. The respondent No.1 preferred statutory appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the court of Additional Sessions Judge and vide impugned order dated 29.08.2019, the learned Appellate Court enhanced the amount of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- and it has been further directed that the aforesaid sum would be payable by the respondent No. 2 (husband) and the petitioner being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It is to be noted at this stage that against the order granting interim maintenance @ Rs.50,000/- per month, the respondent No.2/husband also filed appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.10/2019 and vide impugned judgment the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 (husband) has been dismissed. The respondent No.2-husband filed a separate revision before this court, which is pending for hearing.

3. Shri Mayank Sawhney, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (father-in-law) submits that in the instant petition, the impugned order is illegal and improper. The same is contrary to the scope of appeal under Section 29 of DV Act, inasmuch-as, the Appellate Court has exceeded its power in directing the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- being Karta of HUF. According to him, the Appellate Court could not have passed such a direction, as the same was not the prayer made by the respondent-wife either before the court of Magistrate or before the Appellate Court. According to him, firstly the learned MM in its judgment dated 29.11.2018 gravely erred in recording finding of domestic violence without there being any basis. It is submitted that respondents No.1 & 2 are not part of HUF and HUF was not the party before the trial court and before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has grossly erred in assuming the income of HUF. The amount of Rs.21,00,000/- which was extended towards loan from HUF, has been wrongly construed as the amount towards maintenance. The petitioner has already filed a suit for recovery against respondents No.1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- which is subjudice before the court learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

4. Shri Mohit Mathur, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri B.K. Wadhwa, appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 4 (wife and daughter) opposed the prayer. He submits that the impugned order in appeal is strictly in ac