Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemant Kumar Aseri vs Smt Ankita Singhal on 13 April, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1416 / 2017
Hemant Kumar Aseri S/o Narendra Kumar Aseri, Aged About 31
Years, Caste- Aseri (Jeengar), Khasra No.- 24/2, House No.- 10,
Nandari Fanta, Banar, Banar Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Ankita Singhal D/o Mahendra Kumar Singhal, Aged About 26
Years, Caste- Agarwal, House No.- 321, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 13/04/2018 Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dated 11th of October 2017, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned Appellate Court has partly allowed appeal of the respondent under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of 2005').
At the threshold, respondent-wife filed an application against petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 before learned trial Court. Along with the application, she also made an endeavour (2 of 3) [CRLR-1416/2017] for claiming interim maintenance by way of filing a petition under Section 23 of the Act of 2005. The learned trial Court, after considering the petition, granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per mensem from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred appeal before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court by the order impugned partly allowed her appeal enhancing the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month and reckoning grant of maintenance from the date of main application, i.e., 25 th of May 2016.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent, perused the impugned orders and other materials available on record.
The Act of 2005 is a comprehensive legislation to protect women against domestic violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family. The phenomenon of domestic violence in our Country is widely prevalent but has remained invisible in the public domain. The law as such emanates from the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Scheme of the Act of 2005 provides remedy to an aggrieved woman against any sort of violence perpetrated by any "respondent" within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005. The domestic violence is comprehensively defined in Section 3 of the Act of 2005.
In the instant case, respondent wife has laid a petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 before the learned trial Court seeking various reliefs. During pendency of the petition (3 of 3) [CRLR-1416/2017] aforesaid, she also applied for interim maintenance by resorting to Section 23 of the Act of 2005. The learned trial Court granted interim maintenance to the respondent and quantified amount to the tune of Rs.1,000 per month. Later on, the same was enhanced by the appellate Court to the tune of Rs.2,000 per month. Section 23 envisages with clarity and precision for grant of interim and ex-parte order. There remains no quarrel that both the parties are spouses, and therefore, are in domestic relationship. In the present era of inflation, the amount of interim maintenance granted by learned appellate Court to the tune of Rs.2,000 per month by no stretch of imagination can be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. The real question about domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act of 2005 can be adjudicated by the learned trial Court in the original application after considering evidence of the rival parties, and therefore, at this stage, granting interim maintenance by no stretch of imagination can be categorized as contrary to the basic aims and objects of the Act of 2005. Moreover, the grievance of the petitioner against grant of interim maintenance quantified by the learned appellate Court also appears to be an ambitious plea bereft of any merit and devoid of any force.
In totality, I am unable to find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, the revision petition fails and same is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.