The obligation to maintain a wife lies solely with the husband during marriage, and in-laws cannot be held liable for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C .”), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Botad in Criminal Misc. Application No.144 of 2011 dated 1.6.2017 as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the applicants, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent – State as well as learned advocate Mr. Umang Raval for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. The facts of the case are as under: * The petitioners are in-laws of respondent No.2 herein and the son of the petitioners got married with respondent No.2 on 22.4.1999 at Nadiad. Out of wedlock, two children were born; one is namely; Shivangi and anther one namely; Rahul. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint being Criminal Misc. Application No.144 of 2011 on 3.10.2011 complaint under Sections 18 , 19, 20, 21 and 22 under the Domestic Violence Act before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Botad wherein, vide order dated 1.6.2017 the present petitioners were directed to pay to the respondent No.2 Rs.5,000/- as rental amount and Rs.2,000/- as maintenance alongwith Rs.16,000/- as compensation amount to the respondent No.2. Against the impugned order, the present application is preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Botad in Criminal Misc. Application No.144 of 2011 dated 1.6.2017 as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the present petition is filed by the father in law and mother in law of the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment and order is illegal and improper against the settled principle of law. It is submitted that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has exceeded jurisdiction vested in him and has committed patent illegality in allowing the complaint. It is submitted that respondent No.2 filed the complaint under Sections 18 , 19, 20, 21 and 22 under the Domestic Violence Act against the husband, present applicants, minor children and original opponent No.1 and original complainant. It is submitted that the respondent wife has also obtained an order of maintenance against the husband in proceedings arising out of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision dated 21.6.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application No.3993 of 2014 in the case of Abdulrahim Abdulmiya Pirzada v. State of Gujarat of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the husband has not challenged the impugned judgment and order.

6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 submits that the present petition is filed only by the father in law and mother in law and as the husband has not challenged the impugned judgment and order, the same has attained finality. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 could not contradict the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdulrahim Abdulmiya Pirzada (Supra) .

7. Learned APP for the respondent – State submitted that there is no error or illegality committed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order and further submitted that this Court may not interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in the order impugned.

8. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and also considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the papers placed on record.

9. It transpires that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint under Sections Sections 18 , 19,