MONISH DAS Vs. RUBINA RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has been filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner (hereinafter "Petitioner ") under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C. ") seeking revision against impugned order and judgment dated 9 th June 2017 passed in CA No. 53/16 (8297/16) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "DV Act ") titled "Ms. Rubina Rathore v. Monish Das and Anr.' passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), (CBI-3), South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

(2.) The disputes are arising out of matrimonial relations between the parties, the Petitioner being the husband and Respondent being the wife. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 6 th May 2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Due to the temperamental differences, Petitioner and Respondent decided to live separately and despite attempts of reconciliation, the relationship ultimately broke down. Subsequently four FIRs got registered by the Respondent-wife against the Petitioner-husband and his mother. Out of four FIRs, two were registered in Delhi and two were registered in Udaipur. The complaint case under Section 12 of DV Act has also been filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner and mother-in-law in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said application was registered as CC No. 378/1/14 (20.08.2014)/ (464268/2016). Learned Metropolitan Magistrate decided the said compliant ex parte vide judgment and order dated 20 th August 2016. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

(3.) The appeal under Section 29 of DV Act was filed by the Respondent before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CBI-03 (PC Act), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi against the exparte judgment dated 20th August 2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate for modification and enhancement of the maintenance as awarded. The Petitioner herein, filed the reply in the aforesaid appeal and contended that notices and summons issued by the Magistrate in the complaint filed by the Respondent were not properly served upon him and the impugned judgment and orders were passed by the learned Magistrate ex-parte and without hearing the Petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned in the said appeal is liable to be set aside. It is also contended by the Petitioner herein that without any evidence, his income could not have been presumed to be Rs.75,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) per month. It is also contended in the reply that while calculating the maintenance amount, learned Magistrate had sought to pay 1/5th out of Rs.75,000.00 to the Respondent herein and her minor son, each, but infact, they were awarded Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month, respectively. The Appellate Court vide order dated 9th June 2017 confirmed the order dated 20th August 2016 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The instant criminal revision petition is preferred against the order dated 9th June 2017 passed by the Appellate Court.