Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 516 (RAJ)

Madhu v. Suresh Chandra

2019-02-13

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the appellate court) in criminal appeal No. 2/2013, whereby the appellate court has quashed the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), whereby the trial court while passing an order regarding right to residence of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act of 2005) directed the respondent to pay Rs. 8,500/- to the petitioner for the purpose of residence of the petitioner. 2. The appellate court has quashed the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the trial court mainly on the basis that proceedings under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 are pending before the trial court where the matter was fixed on many occasions but the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence in support of her though she is appearing before the trial court on regular basis for the purpose of collection of the interim maintenance amount. 3. The appellate court has failed to take into consideration the fact that petitioner had filed application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 in the year 2008 and trial court while passing an interim order observed that the order regarding the right to residence of the petitioner will be passed at the time of final decision of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The said order was passed in the year 2008 but up to 2012, the trial court neither decided the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 nor passed any order regarding right to residence of the petitioner. 4. I have also gone through the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the trial court, wherein the trial court has observed that as the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 are pending since 2008 but no order regarding right to residence of the petitioner has been passed till date, therefore, it is proper that respondent be directed to pay Rs. 8,500/- per month to enable the petitioner to pay rent of accommodation, where she is living. The trial court has also ordered the amount of Rs. 8,500/- per month to enable the petitioner to pay rent of accommodation, where she is living. The trial court has also ordered the amount of Rs. 8,500/- per month is in addition to the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the appellate court has grossly erred in interfering with the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the trial court and the reasons given by the appellate court for reversing the order of the trial court are not convincing, hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the appellate court is set aside and the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed.