Telangana High Court
Karad Santosh vs Karad Pushpalatha Alias Manisha on 3 February, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.59 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri T.Ranjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. The 1st respondent-wife had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short, 'the DVC Act') vide DVC.No.2 of 2019 against petitioner and others seeking several reliefs. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, vide order dated 15.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.828 of 2018 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2019 has awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the 1st respondent towards monthly maintenance. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has filed Crl.A.No.161 of 2019 and learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, vide impugned order dated 11.01.2022 dismissed the said appeal.
3. Sri T.Ranjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the petition filed by 1st respondent under Section 12 of the DVC Act would submit that there are no allegations against the petitioner herein with regard to domestic violence. She left the company of the petitioner and shared house within seven days of the marriage. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Reliance was placed on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sangita Saha vs. Abhijit Saha1.
4. He would further submit that even then without considering the said fact, both learned Magistrate and learned Appellate Court have awarded the said amount of Rs.8,000/- to the 1st respondent towards monthly maintenance. 1 (2019) 18 SC 181 2 KL,J Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2022
5. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has filed Crl.A.No.161 of 2019, challenging the interim order dated 15.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.828 of 2018 in DVC No.2 of 2019. However, the said DVC is pending. It will be decided on merits considering the contentions raised by both parties including the contention of the petitioner herein that there is no pleading by respondent No.1 in the petition under Section 12 of the DC Act that there is domestic violence. However, the said defences are to be considered by the learned Magistrate in D.V.C.No.2 of 2019. The petitioner herein has filed the said appeal challenging the interlocutory order granting Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance to the 1st respondent herein.
6. As per Section 12(5) of the DVC Act, the learned Magistrate has to decide DVC within 60 days from the date of first hearing. Though the DVC is of the year 2019, the Court below has not disposed of the said DVC so far. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.01.2022 in Crl.A.No.161 of 2019. However, considering the above said provision, i.e., Section 12(5) of the DVC Act, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Adilabad is directed to dispose of DVC.No.2 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 03.02.2022 KL/vvr