BHUPESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL PRAJAPATI Vs. RUNALI BHUPESHKUMAR PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Revision Application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C., the applicants challenge the order dtd. 22/6/2022 passed by learned JMFC, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.4100 of 2018, whereby, under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act'), learned JMFC granted several reliefs under Sec. 19(f) and 22 of the Act in an application under Sec. 12 of the Act. Relief granted by the learned JMFC is in tune of Rs.2000.00 under Sec. 19(f) of the Act towards rent in-lieu of accommodation and further granted Rs.5,000.00 towards maintenance to wife and did not decide to grant relief to minor child as minor child was getting Rs.3000.00 from the order of learned Family Court but directed to pay educational expenses of minor son and in addition thereto, also ordered to pay Rs.10,000.00 as compensation under Sec. 22 of the Act. The applicant - husband challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by filing Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2022. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dtd. 28/11/2023 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and order delivered by the learned JMFC. Being aggrieved by both the judgment and orders, the applicant - husband has filed present Revision Application.

(2.) Facts of the case are as under :-

(3.) Heard learned advocate for the applicants. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that learned Court below has committed serious error in believing that domestic relationship exists between the parties and also domestic violation. He would further submit that learned Court below has not addressed this issue, more particularly, in view of the admitted fact that wife had left matrimonial home in the year 2016 without any reason and since then, there was no domestic relationship between the husband and wife. Yet in the application filed in the year 2018 under the Act, learned JMFC believed existence of domestic relationship. There is clear flaws in the impugned orders. It is also submitted that wife has obtained order from the Court below by suppressing material fact. She was doing job. This aspect has been suppressed by the wife in the petition. Referring to Annexure G, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that photographs indicate that wife is sitting in jewellery shop and earning. It is submitted that this aspect is suppressed by wife before the Court below and same is not considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted that wife has purchased immovable property and she is residing there. This fact is also suppressed by wife and learned Trial Court has totally overlooked this aspect and therefore, wife is not entitled to get any amount of rent for accommodation as she has her own accommodation. Therefore, it is submitted that orders passed by learned Court below are erroneous. It is also submitted that none of the provisions of the Act permits the Court below to pass order for educational expenses of minor children, more particularly, in absence of son is not party petitioner in the proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned orders sans merits and present Revision Application deserves consideration.