SYED NAIM SYED VAJIR Vs. SAMINA SYED NAIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Revision No.92/2010 by which the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 29.10.2010 passed below Exhibit22 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.586/2008.

(3.) Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thusRespondent No.1 has filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act before JMFC, Beed bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.205/2008. A separate application, seeking interim maintenance and certain other directions was filed on 18.06.2008. Application for interim maintenance was contested by the petitionerhusband, however the same came to be allowed on 21.08.2008. It is observed by the trial court that the petitioner to pay financial assistance @ Rs.5000/u/ s 20 of the Domestic Violence Act to the respondents. It appears that thereafter an application for execution of the said order came to be filed by respondent No.1 in the trial Court. The application for execution was filed on 29.11.2008 for recovery of the maintenance amount for 3 months totaling to Rs.15,000/. It further appears that along with the said application one more application was moved by the respondent u/s 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking correction of the operative part of the order dated 21.08.2008 as it remained to be mentioned that the financial assistance @ Rs. 5000/ per month be paid. The words per month are remained to be mentioned in the operative order. It appears that on 06.08.2010, the petitionerhusband raised objection that the Magistrate cannot correct or modify his own order, once the same is declared and signed. Vide order dated 29.10.2010, the application moved by the respondent came to be allowed by the Magistrate by observing that the correction sought by the respondent is a typographical error and it can be corrected under the powers vested in the Magistrate. It appears that being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.92/2010 before Sessions Court, Beed. The said Criminal Revision came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2011, which is impugned in the present petition.