SUDARSHAN Vs. JYOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the original respondent husband challenging the order of rejection of his appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar on 03-07-2019 wherein he had challenged the interim maintenance order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basmathnagar on 20-11-2017 in Criminal Application (Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act ) No.53 of 2016 at Exhibit 04. By this order the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had directed the respondent husband to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. I. Pathan for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Y. K. Delmade for respondent No.1.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner husband that, the learned trial Judge failed to consider that, there was nothing on record which would positively show that the wife has been subjected to domestic violence. A cryptic order has been passed only on the basis of contents of the application and by ignoring the say filed by the respondent. There was nothing to show that, the husband had deserted the wife. Further the husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court at Nanded vide Petition No. A 91 of 2016, it has been decided on 02-02-2018, thereby decreeing the petition and directing the wife to resume cohabitation. Under such circumstance, the wife is not entitled to get maintenance much less interim maintenance. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.