VINIT VILAS VAIDYA Vs. MANJIRI VINIT VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by husband/original non applicant challenging judgment and order dtd. 16/12/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad, in PWDVA Appeal No.78 of 2019 dismissing his appeal. The appeal was preferred against an order dated 17. 03.2018 passed by the learned 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in application bearing PWDVA No.434 of 2016 directing the applicant-husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month to wife Manjiri and Rs.3000.00 per month to daughter Manasvi from the date of application as per sec. 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act [for short "the Act"]. The applicant is further directed to pay Rs.2000.00 per month to wife towards rent as per sec. 19 of the Act.

(2.) Initially the parties were referred to mediation, however, the mediation report shows that the mediation is failed.

(3.) The applicant-husband is a practicing advocate. It is his case that though the proceeding is taken under the Act, without recording any finding about the domestic violence, relief is granted under Sec. 20 and 19 of the Act. It is further his case that there is no proof of his income on record. The entire proceeding is taken out of false allegations. There is no specific incident of domestic violence pleaded and proved and as such the proceeding itself was not maintainable. The respondent-wife is in habit of filing false complaints. She had even filed a complaint for the offence punishable under sec. 306 r/w sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "the IPC"] , wherein discharge application was filed in the Sessions Court. On rejection of the discharge application, the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No.120 of 2019 and the same was allowed by order dtd. 24/7/2019. Against the order passed by this Court, even SLP was preferred and that also came to be rejected. He further stated that even case under sec. 498-A of the IPC was filed against the applicant and his relatives. The case ended in acquittal. However, the applicant was held guilty only for the offence punishable under sec. 323 of the IPC and he was given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Against said judgment, an appeal is pending. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The applicant also further stated that though initially he was in service, however, because of the domestic reasons, he was required to resign and now he has started his practice as an advocate. Since he has recently started practice, he is not getting income and on this count also he submitted that he is not in a position to pay the amount as directed by the learned Courts below.