IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHPIMLA Cr. MMO No. 44 of 2023 Reserved on: 28.09.2023 Date of Decision: 09.10.2023 _________________________________________________

Kamlesh Thakur f ....Petitioner Versus o Divya Jyoti …Respondent _________________________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justiceu Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate.

________________________________________________

S ushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was respondent before the learned Trial Court, under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) with a prayer to quash and set-aside order dated 26.11.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in a petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., CIS Registration No. 36 of 2022, titled as Divya Jyoti vs. Kamlesh Thakur, passed in

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Cr.M.A. No. 02/2022, whereby the learned Court has alPlowed the above mentioned petition and interim monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- was awarded to the respondent, who was petitioner before the learned Trial Court, alongwith litigation charges to the tune of Ros.5000/- from the date of application till the final disposal of the main petition (Case No. 28 of 2022).

2. The brief facts of the case, which emerge from the records, caon be encapsulated as under:

2(a). CThe petitioner and respondent had solemnized marriage in the year 2010, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs, but no issue was born out of their wedlock. The respondent herein alleged before the learned Court below that the petitioner kept her nicely for 3-4 years and thereafter, he started harassing her and also started giving beatings to her. The respondent further alleged that during the month of July, 2019, the petitioner gave her merciless beatings and also ousted her. The respondent alleged that she has no source of income, whereas, the petitioner is working in Mandi Parwati Project on a technical post and his monthly salary is Rs.40,000/- and in addition to this he has landed propePrty as well. Cumulatively, the monthly income of the petitioner, as per the respondent, is Rs.80,000/- per month.

2(b). The petitioner herein, by filing re ply to the petition before the Court below, contested othe same. The petitioner alleged that he is an unemployed person, having no permanent source of income. He has further alleged that he earns his livelihood by doing private work of driving. He has liability towardso his parents and other family members. As per the Cpetitioner, the respondent had herself left his company and neglected him. The petitioner had prayed for dismissal of the petition preferred by the respondent before the learned Trial Court.

2(c). However, vide impugned order dated 26.11.2022, the learned trial Court had granted interim maintenance in favour of the respondent (herein) at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is to be paid by the petitioner w.e.f. filing of the petition till final disposal of the main petition. The petitioner-Kamlesh Kumar was also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- tPo the respondent.

3. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred the instant petition with a prayer to allow the in stant petition and to quash and set-aside the oimpugned order dated 26.11.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in a petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., CIS Registration No. 36 of 2021, titled as Divya Jyoti vs. oKamlesh Thakur.

4. CI have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material available on record.

5. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued directions that the affidavit of disclosure of asset