ANUP SAHANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision, under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Anup Sahani, with a prayer for setting aside the impugned orders dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act-3, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, Anup Sahani vs. State of U.P. and another, under Section, 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as well as order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Gorakhpur, in case No. 61 of 2016, Smt. Sangam Devi vs. Anup Sahani and others, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Gorakhnath, District-Gorakhpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicant argued, that both of the Courts below failed to appreciate facts and law placed before them and passed impugned orders, which are apparently erroneous on the face of it. There is under exercise of jurisdiction vested in both the above Courts. The impugned order is under violation of natural justice. Objection was raised before the trial Court. But the same were not considered and an amount of Rs. 3,000/-, as maintenance, per month, was directed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of application i.e. 30.10.2017 and it was illegal. There is mandatory provision under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, that firstly the report of District Probation Officer is to be called for and thenafter, case is to be initiated. But, this was not obeyed, hence, the order was challenged before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, Anup Sahani vs. State of U.P., wherein, again reiteration was there but, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision, with above prayer.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed stating that a meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month was directed to be paid and this revision has been filed.