DEEPAK MAHAVEERPRASAD GUPTA Vs. SONU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is the Respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 737 of 2010 pending in the Court of 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi, under provisions from Domestic Violence Act. In the said application learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an interim order directing the Applicant to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the Applicant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his daughters. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are aged about 15 and 11 years, respectively. The Applicant has further been directed to provide residence to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 or to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/ -.

(2.) THIS order was challenged before the Sessions Court in an appeal filed by the Applicant. The said appeal has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, Thane. The Applicant was married to Respondent No. 1 on 11.02.1997. He has filed a divorce petition bearing H.M.A. Petition No. 403 of 2003 under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the District Judge, Delhi, for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Said petition has been transferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is now pending in the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. In the said petition an amount of Rs. 20,000/ - by way of interim monthly maintenance was granted to Respondent No. 1 by the District Judge, Delhi. The Applicant and the children of Applicant and Respondent No. 1 have been staying separately since 2004.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Abad Ponda is heard on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondent No. 1 is heard on behalf of herself and her children. It is submitted by Mr. Ponda that Applicant is paying Rs. 20,000/ - p.m. to Respondent No. 1, as per order passed by the District Judge, Delhi, in a divorce petition filed by the Applicant on the ground of cruelty. It is submitted that there are no serious breaches in the payment of said amount except few breaches, which have been rectified later on. Respondent No. 1 does not deny this position. Question before the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court was as to whether despite the said order of grant of Rs. 20,000/ - by way of maintenance, was it necessary or permissible to grant additional maintenance to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by way of interim order under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Both the Courts below have taken view that the provisions of the Act are in addition to the provisions available to the aggrieved person under other laws, including marriage laws and section 125 of Cr.P.C. As far as the domestic violence is concerned, both the Courts below came to the conclusion, that there appeared to be economic violence imposed by the Applicant on Respondent No. 1 and therefore, there exist a case for passing an interim order. Whether there existed, a prima facie case of economic violence or not, and / or whether Respondent nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to the orders passed by the Courts below can be examined in the light of material on record, which was brought before the Trial Magistrate and before the Appellate Court.