JANARDHAN Vs. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both above revisions are directed against common judgment passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, while deciding Criminal Appeal (PWDVA) No.12 of 2020, which is at the instance of wife and son, challenging order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court No.20, Aurangabad in PWDVA Application No.108 of 2017 dtd. 10/1/2020, whereas Criminal Appeal (PWDVA) No.19 of 2020 is at the instance of husband, thereby challenging the same order of learned JMFC, Aurangabad

(2.) Facts leading to above proceedings are that, revision petitioners of Criminal Revision Application No.103 of 2021 (who are wife and son) instituted proceedings bearing PWDVA Application No.108 of 2017 before learned JMFC, Aurangabad by invoking provisions under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "DV Act") against husband setting up a case that, on 16/6/2007, petitioner no.1 wife performed Temple marriage with respondent Janardhan Bhimrao Harne and it was her case that, out of their wedlock, they have a son namely Ganesh (petitioner no.2). That, she was treated properly up to October, 2011, but thereafter, she was mal-treated, assaulted and subjected to physical and mental cruelty. That, husband had suppressed his previous marriage and that he had two children. That, respondent husband started neglecting them both so she filed complaint before Cidco Police Station. It is her case that, respondent husband, was working in Police Department and in October, 2011, while she was pregnant, she was mercilessly beaten and driven out of house and therefore, she was constrained to reside in a rental premises. That, she has no independent means and source of income to maintain herself as well as her child, whereas respondent husband earned over Rs.40,000.00 by way of salary and he has distinct rental income as well as agricultural income and therefore, she set up above application seeking multiple reliefs including monetary reliefs. During pendency of the proceedings under the DV Act, by order date 19/7/2017 passed on application Exh.1, interim maintenance was granted to the wife and son to the tune of Rs.2,500.00 per month each.

(3.) Above proceedings were resisted by respondent husband denying the very factum of marriage and about he to be father of Ganesh. It is his case that, all allegations and accusations are false and documents relied by wife are manufactured and fabricated one. Both sides adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate their cases. Finally, on appreciating the same, learned JMFC, by order dtd. 10/1/2020, passed a detailed order partly allowing the claim directing payment of Rs.3,000.00 per month to each of the petitioners i.e. wife and son, compensation of Rs.25,000.00 and cost of litigation and passed necessary directions to prevent respondent from inflicting violence.