ASHOK KUMAR Vs. NEETU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Sec. 397read with Sec. 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by petitioner assailing the order dtd. 5/8/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi ("Appellate Court") in the matter of "Ashok Kumar vs. Neetu" in appeal C.A. No. 54/2022vide which the challenge to order dtd. 9/2/2022 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistarte-04, Mahila Court-South, Saket Courts, New Delhi ("Trial Court") in CT No. 317912020 tilted as "Neetu Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors." was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts which have given rise to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent herein is the complainant/wife in a petition filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV Act") which she had filed against the husband/petitioner herein. The respondent had also filed an application under Sec. 23 of the DV Act against the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance. The respondent had alleged emotional psychological and physical cruelty against the present petitioner and had also pleaded that she was a housewife who was living with two children and had sought grant of Rs.35,000.00 as interim maintenance. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner herein filed a reply as well as both the parties had filed their income and expenditure affidavits. It is stated that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dtd. 9/2/2022, after hearing both the parties and perusing the documents on record had directed payment of Rs.8,000.00 per month as the maintenance to the respondent.

(3.) It is stated that the present petitioner is aggrieved by the said order since the income of the petitioner is only Rs.3,300.00, however, he has the liability of more than Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees ten lacs) as more than Rs.8,20,000.00 have been taken by mother of the petitioner as loan at the rate two per cent per month from one Sh. Chander Pal Singh which he has to repay along with interest.It is also stated that the learned Trial Court failed to take note of the evidence filed by the present petitioner against the respondent regarding the cruelty and infidelity committed by the respondent against the petitioner/revisionist. It is also stated that the order was impugned before the learned Appellate Court, but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dtd. 9/2/2022.