Judgment reserved.
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4303 of 2011 Revisionist :- Smt. Archana Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Chetan Chatterjee Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. Counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have not appeared even in the revised call. Perused the available record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, II Saharanpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.48 of 2009, (Smt. Archana Jain Vs. Vinay Kumar Jain and Others), under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and against the judgment and order dated 8.9.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Saharanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2011, (Smt. Archana Jain Vs. Vinay Kumar Jain and Others), whereby the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed.
Revisionist had filed application under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and prayed that she may be awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month, towards rent of Rs. 3000/- per month for maintenance and Rs.1500/- per month each for her two daughters.
The opposite party no.2 filed objection to the application.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 06.5.2009 directed that revisionist is entitled to Rs.500/- per month and her two daughters are entitled for Rs.500/- each per month towards maintenance.
Revisionist had filed application under Section 25 of the Act of 2005. The learned Lower Court vide order dated 16.12.2010 enhanced the maintenance amount of revisionist from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- but maintenance amount for her two daughters remained unaltered.
Revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No.5/2011 challenging the order dated 7.10.2010.
The Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 8.9.2011 dismissed the said appeal.
Being aggrieved, the revisionist had filed the present revision.
The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount of maintenance is meagre and it is not sufficient in the present time when her two daughters are going school. He also relied upon the fee receipts of school which are on record.
The opposite party no.2 is working as a trained electrician. The amount awarded is no doubt is a meagre amount and taking into consideration the present requirement, the prayer of the revisionist to enhance the maintenance amount is liable to be accepted.
Accordingly, the present revision is allowed with the direction to the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3000/- to the revisionist and Rs.1500/- each to the two daughters every month.
Lower Courts record shall be sent back to the trial court concerned.
Order Date :- 31.1.2019 SB