Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43317 of 2018 Applicant :- Aditya Bhargava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 06.10.2018 in case No. 214 of 2017 (Smt. Ruchika Singh Vs. Aditya Bhargava and others) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad passed by A.C.J.M, Court No.7, Ghaziabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on the application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act of the opposite party No.2, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad has passed the order dated 06.10.2018, whereby applicant (husband) has been directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite party No.2 (wife) as an interim maintenance and also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the daughter of the opposite party No.2. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as ordered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ghaziabad towards interim maintenance for the daughter of the opposite party No.2 is highly excessive. In the light of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I have perused the order and considered the material documents on record. The applicant himself has disclosed that his salary is about Rs. 65,722/- per month as mentioned in para 9 of the objection dated 10.06.2018 filed as Annexure No.3 with the application. Considering the aforesaid admitted amount of salary of the applicant, I am not inclined to interfere in the order dated 06.10.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ghaziabad and the amount awarded towards interim maintenance as mentioned in the order dated 06.10.2018 cannot said to be highly excessive under the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the above, no interference is required in the order dated 06.10.2018. Relief as claimed by the applicant is refused.
The present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Abhishek