1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.
2. Several opportunities given to the opposite party no. 2 to file counter affidavit but today also neither anyone appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 nor there is any counter affidavit on record.
3. The present criminal revision is being preferred against the judgement and order dated 26.7.2018 passed by Pavan Kumar Shukla (HJS) Family Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Etah in Crl. Appeal No. 27 of 2017, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement and order dated 23.3.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Etah in Case No. 1391 of 2014 (Smt. Kalpana Jauhari Vs. Akashdeep and others) under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence Act in which learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah awarded Rs. 5,000/- each per month to the revisionist and her daughter under Section 20 of Domestic Violence in Protection of Women Act 2005 and reduced the amount Rs. 3,000/- each per month to the revisionist and her daughter in place of Rs. 5,000/- each on tenth date of each month.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Judicial Magistrate, Etah passed the order dated 23.3.2017 in the Domestic Violence Act only on the basis of evidence available on record as well as statement of prosecution witness and opposite party witness. By means of this order, judicial magistrate awarded Rs. 5,000/- each to the revisionist as well as his minor daughter. Revisionist earlier made an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Etah has allowed the application of revisionist and his daughter, respectively, maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- and 2500/- vide order dated 26.11.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that being aggrieved by the order of Judicial Magistrate dated 23.3.2017, opposite party had filed a criminal appeal before Family Judge in which the Family Court without appreciating the true facts, wrongly reduced the amount of maintenance allowance from 5,000/- each to Rs. 3,000/- each for her daughter and the revisionist.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the appellate family court without appreciating the true facts that the order of 125 Cr.P.C. dated 26.11.2016 which was existed at the time of disposal of application under the Domestic Violence Act on 23.3.2017, Judicial Magistrate was fully aware that the maintenance allowance is already awarded on 26.11.2016 to the revisionist so there is no occasion to Appellate Family Court to reduce the amount from Rs. 5,000/- each to Rs. 3,000/- each.
7. So, learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the family court wrongly reduced the amount awarded by the Judicial Magistrate in the Domestic Violence Act cases and order of the Judicial Magistrate should be revived.
8. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it reveals that the learned appellate court reduced the amount only on the basis that the revisionist already get the amount of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court. This fact was also in existence when the Judicial Magistrate awarded the amount of maintenance under the Domestic Act on 23.3.2017. So there was no occasion to reduce the amount of maintenance by the Appellate Family Court without assigning any reason.
9. Order of the Appellate Court is not well-reasoned and well-discussed and is liable to be set aside.
10. Learned Appellate Court committed material irregularity while deciding the appeal of the opposite party No. 2. Hence, the revision is liable to be allowed.
11. Learned appellate court is hereby directed to decide the appeal after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist as well as the opposite party according to observation made by this Court.
12. With the aforesaid direction/observation, revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Ankita