Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gurpreet Singh @ Sachin Yadav vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr on 26 July, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.1185/2015 (Shahina & Anr Vs. Mohd. Farukh) Date of Order ::: 26.07.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Sajid Ali, for the respondent.
The complainant-petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. agaisnt the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2014 whereby the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as 'The Act') and reduced the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although it was observed by the learned Appellate Court that in these days of high costs, it is very difficult to bear the expenses of a family and the respondent has a duty to maintain his wife and minor child, but even then without recording any reason reduced the amount of interim maintenance. It was further submitted that although the amount of Rs. 4,000/- is also a meager amount to maintain the petitioners, but even then it was reduced.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has no source of his own income -2- as he is presently pursuing his studies but even then the courts below has awarded amount of interim maintenance from him. It was also submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Court in reducing the amount.
On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the fact that admittedly petitioner Shahina is legally married wife of the respondent and petitioner No.2-Mohd. Aavesh is minor son aged four years, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court cannot be held to be proper as no reasons have been recorded in its support.
Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Baran is set aside and order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baran passed in case No.211/2013 is restored. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J Jyoti/-
S.No.96 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Jyoti/-
Junior Personal Assistant