ANIL SHIVRAMWAR Vs. SMT. REKHA SHIVRAMWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the husband against the judgment dated 12.3.2018 passed by the 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2017, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.136 of 2014.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Applicant married the Respondent in the year 2005. On 18.6.2013, the Respondent filed Complaint Case No.129 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth 'the Act of 2005'). Vide order dated 25.9.2013, the Trial Court partly allowed the application of the Respondent and granted her a sum of Rs.2,000/- as maintenance and also granted her a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards house rent. After passing of the above order, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also filed by the Respondent and the matter was referred to the Counsellor. During the counselling proceeding, the Respondent herself stated that she has vacated the rented accommodation and at present she is residing at her maternal house along with her parents. On the basis of this fact, the Applicant moved an application under Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur which was registered as M.Cr.C. No.136 of 2014. Vide order dated 6.6.2017, the Judicial Magistrate First Class set aside the order granting the sum of Rs.1,500/- towards house rent. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2017, the Respondent filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 before the Court of Session. In the appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 12.3.2018, set aside the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate First Class has wrongly interpreted the words "change of circumstances". The Additional Sessions Judge restored the earlier order dated 25.9.2013. Hence, the present revision by the husband.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband submitted that Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005 gives a wide discretion to the Magistrate, who may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, pass such order, as he may deem appropriate on receipt of an application and on being satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under the Act of 2005. While entertaining the appeal, the Appellate Court has committed a grave error of law in reversing the well reasoned finding given by the Trial Court. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel that since the Respondent herself has admitted the fact that presently she is residing at her maternal house, therefore, order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class is based on evidence available on record. Without considering this, the Appellate Court has wrongly set aside the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.