KISHOR Vs. SHALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner - husband has put to challenge the proceedings in Misc. Criminal Complaint Case No.314/2007, filed by respondent Nos.l and 2 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati under Section 12 r/w. Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as not maintainable and also the orders dated 31.10.2007 and 11.12.2007, made by the Courts below in the said proceedings. FACTS:

(2.) Respondent No.l is the wife of petitioner and respondent No.2 is the son of the petitioner. They filed complaint under Sections 12 r/w. 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati. In their complaint they stated that respondent No.l was married to the petitioner on 8.5.1990 at Amravati and out of their wedlock respondent No.2 was born on 24.2.1991. Respondent No.l was treated with cruelty for demand of dowry by the petitioner and his relatives. Finally, the petitioner deserted both the respondent Nos.l and 2 in the year 1992 and since then respondent Nos. 1 and2 are living separately with her father at his village and thereafter at Amravati. She filed proceedings for grant of maintenance which were decided on 30.11.1996 and both respondents were awarded maintenance amount by the Court and presently the maintenance i.e. awarded to them in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is Rs. 1,800/- per month for both. The petitioner had initiated divorce proceedings and were dismissed and now appeal is said to be pending. The petitioner and his mother have sold ancestral house that was located at Kishor Nagar, Amravati with an oblique motive to keep the applicants away from its enjoyment and benefits. The petitioner is a lecturer in Junior College and earning salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Respondent No.2 is taking education in 12th standard and now he needs separate accommodation for his studies, which is not available at the house of her brother. Her brother has now been asking respondent Nos.l and 2 to make their own arrangement for residence and therefore they require sum of Rs.7,000/-per month to each of them, which the petitioner can easily pay. The petitioner must provide accommodation to both the respondents as he is under legal obligation to do so. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose initially in the year 1992. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were deserted and neglected and it continued.

(3.) Based on these facts, reliefs were claimed or directions to the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to each for maintenance from the date of application and to allow the respondents to reside in the house of the petitioner or to pay rent for other accommodation. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court and filed application for dismissal of the complaint and also raised objection about maintainability of the complaint. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Amravati rejected the application (Exh. 12) for dismissal of complaint by his order dated 31.10.2007 and by order dated 31.12.2007 allowed application (Exh.5) in the complaint by directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.l and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 by way of interim maintenance and Rs. 1200/- per month by way of rent of house. Appeal that was filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court by order dated 11.12.2007. Hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.