SHASHANK JAISWAL Vs. NEELAM JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been filed along with IA No.01/2023, an application for condonation of delay of 3258 days in filing the same against the order dtd. 3/3/2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.692/2010 whereby, the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C preferred by the Non-Applicant/wife has been partly allowed and she has been awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000.00 per month from the date of passing of the said order.

(2.) At the outset, Shri Upadhyay submits that after passing of the ex parte interim maintenance order in the said case, the Applicant had complied with the order impugned and cleared all the dues and has no grievance to this effect. He further submits that the Applicant has a limited grievance to the extent that while filing a subsequent application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') vide Criminal Case No.226/2013, Non-Applicant/wife had not disclosed that there exists a maintenance order in her favour already and the said proceeding has also been initiated. He further submits that the application preferred by the Non-Applicant/wife under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 was dismissed by the JMFC, Durg vide order dtd. 15/4/2013 and she had challenged the said order by filing Cr.A No.116/2013 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in which, though the Applicant was proceeded ex parte, but his father and brother had participated in the same and the said application was allowed in favour of Non-Applicant/wife and the Applicant was directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000.00 per month. He further submits that as in the said appellate order, no date has been affixed for payment of the said amount, therefore, the same is deemed to be effective from the date of passing of the judgment i.e. 27/2/2015 and the Applicant is regularly paying the maintenance in pursuance of the said order in favour of the Non-Applicant/wife. He further submits that due service has not been made before passing of the ex parte order dtd. 3/3/2011 and it has also not been verified as to whether the Applicant resides in the address given by the Non-Applicant/wife or not. However, he has not challenged the Revision on merits but only has a legitimate ground to set off the earlier maintenance, which has been awarded in the subsequent order in the case of domestic violence and the same may be treated merged or adjusted to the extent of the aforesaid amount as per the principles laid down in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and perused the order impugned along with the documents annexed herewith.