G. RANGANATH Vs. MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent in Crl.Misc.72/2012 on the file of V MMTC, Bangalore, has come up in this proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking setting aside of order dated 10.8.2012 passed on an application, which is filed under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) for maintenance of the respondent herein and children of petitioner and respondent herein, which is confirmed by order dated 24.6.2013 in Crl.A.No.591/2012 on the file of FTC XV, Bangalore.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that petitioner herein is husband and respondent is his wife. The fact that they are living separately from 21.1.2008 is not in dispute, which is borne out by the pleadings in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in MC.219/2008, by the petitioner herein seeking restitution of conjugal rights with respondent, his wife. During the pendency of proceeding in MC.No.219/2008 the respondent-wife had approached the media trying to highlight the dispute between herself and her husband on 12.12.2011. She also filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 506 of IPC. It is seen that subsequent to filing of such complaint, MC petition filed by petitioner- husband is allowed on 7.1.12 directing the wife to join her husband and thereafter, the present petition in Crl.Misc.72/2012 under Section 12 of the Act is filed.

(3.) In said MC petition, an application in IA.I/2012 is filed under Section 20(1)(d) of Act seeking interim maintenance for the maintenance of respondent and also her two children born in the wedlock with petitioner. On appreciation of the aforesaid facts, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that respondent-wife is not entitled to seek maintenance from her husband in view of the fact that there is already an order directing her to establish her conjugal rights with her husband, petitioner herein and to live with him in the matrimonial house, which she has not complied. Therefore, the application filed by her is considered only to the extent of providing maintenance to minor children, who are admittedly residing with her from 2008. The said order of learned Magistrate is challenged by respondent-husband in Crl.A.No.591/2012, which came to be dismissed and the interim maintenance that is granted on IA.I/2012 in Crl.MIs.72/2012 is confirmed. Being aggrieved by the finding of both the courts, the present petition is filed.