Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 502 (RAJ)

Surender Kumar v. Suman Devi

2016-04-07

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. Brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner wife filed application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') before the learned trial court with the averments that she was married to non-applicant husband on 8th July, 2003 as per the Hindu Rites and rituals and from this wedlock one female child was born. The applicant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the non-applicant who threw her and her child out of the matrimonial house. 2. Due to the intervention of the members of the society, she joined the matrimonial house but again the non-applicant started domestic violence and thrown her out of the house. Thus, the applicant wife prayed for protection and maintenance under the provisions of the Act of 2005. 3. A reply to the application was filed by the petitioner non-applicant wherein he denied the allegations of the complainant. 4. The learned trial court by order dated 24.9.2013 granted interim maintenance to the applicant non-petitioner @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the non-applicant petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 21.7.2015. 5. Hence, this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to keep the applicant non-petitioner with him but the learned trial court has not considered this aspect of the case. The complaint was filed on the false grounds of cruelty and desertion. It is also submitted that the applicant non-petitioner herself has deserted the matrimonial house and is living separately and she is earning more than Rs. 6600/- per month. 8. The learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court have observed that there is no evidence to show that the applicant non-petitioner is earning Rs. 6600/- per month. It is also observed by the appellate court that at this stage there is no need to prove that the domestic violence report should be counter signed by the Protection Officer while filing a petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and to refuse interim maintenance. 9. 6600/- per month. It is also observed by the appellate court that at this stage there is no need to prove that the domestic violence report should be counter signed by the Protection Officer while filing a petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and to refuse interim maintenance. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of impugned orders of both the learned courts below, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. The revision petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the main petition, the stay application is also dismissed.