Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3084 of 2019 Revisionist :- Rajkumar Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Suphal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.
Heard Sri R.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P. C. has been filed challenging the order dated 15.5.2019 passed by the appellate court whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') has been dismissed affirming the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate granting interim maintenance under Section 23 (2) of the Act for maintenance to the O.P. No.2 and his minor son to the extent of Rs. 4000/- per month.
The record reflects that in a proceedings under Section 12 of the Act was initiated by the O.P. No.2 against her husband -revisionist for the domestic violence alleged to have been committed by the revisionist. In the said proceedings, interim maintenance was granted by the Magistrate vide order dated 12.10.2018, directing the husband-revisionist to pay the interim maintenance to her her wife and his minor son to the extent of Rs. 4000/- per month. Against that order, the Appeal No. 131 of 2018 was filed which was dismissed.
The sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist regularly paying the maintenance as awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the extent of Rs. 6000/- per month and therefore, the Magistrate has committed while passing the interim maintenance to the extent of Rs. 4000/- and in view of proviso of Section 12(2) of the Act the said amount should be set off and the wife and minor son of the revisionist is not entitled for the same. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the revisionist to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act which provides where a decree of any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Court shall be set off against the amount payable and decree, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or any other law for the time being in force be executable for the balance amount if any, left after such set off.
The provision of Section 12 (2) of the Act is not much effected of the present case, as the interim maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not a decree as defined under Section 2(2) of the C.P. C.
Admittedly, the revisionist is working in the C.R.P.F. and learned counsel for the revisionist informed that his income more than 40,000/- although, no salary slip is appended along with affidavit.
In view of the above, the maintenance awarded to the extent of Rs. 4000/ per month under the proceedings of Section 23 (2) of the Act cannot be said to be excessive.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court as well as appellate court.
The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Akbar