PRAMOD TRIPATHI Vs. SANGITA TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.5.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and affirming the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.270 of 2016 allowing the application preferred by the Respondent/wife under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and awarding an interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the Respondent/wife and against the Applicants.

(2.) The marriage between Respondent/wife Smt. Sangita Tripathi and Applicant No.1 Pramod Tripathi was solemnised on 24.6.2014. Applicant No.2 is father-in-law, Applicant No.3 is mother-in-law, Applicant No.4 is sister-in-law and Applicant No.5 is brother-in-law of the Respondent/wife. They were residing together under a same roof. At the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made. Only gifts were given by the father of the Respondent/wife. Due to harassment and disputes taken after few months of her marriage, the Respondent/wife left the matrimonial house and now she is residing at her paternal house. She is unable to maintain herself. She filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During pendency of the said application, she filed another application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for interim maintenance which was allowed vide order dated 17.11.2016. An appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2016 was preferred by the present Applicants against the order dated 17.11.2016. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 26.5.2017. Hence, this revision.

(3.) It is submitted by Smt. Indira Tripathi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants that no document regarding earning of Applicant No.1/husband is filed. Applicant No.2, father-in-law is engaged in the profession of doing worship and thereby he earns Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month only. Applicant No.3 is housewife and Applicants No.4 and 5 are students. The Respondent/wife is residing separately without any reasonable cause. The husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Since the wife is residing separately without any reasonable cause, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. There is no likelihood of delay in disposal of the matter by the Trial Court. Though some delay is occurred yet it is due to the Respondent/wife.