DEEPAK GANGADHAR DADGE Vs. VIJAYA DEEPAK DADGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner - Husband hereby takes exception to the judgment and order dtd. 31/1/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Criminal Appeal (PWDVA) No. 04/2019 arising out of judgment and order dtd. 3/8/2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir in Criminal Misc. Application No. 257/2012. The learned JMFC awarded maintenance to the Respondents wife and son on her application, whereas, learned First Appellate Court maintained the said order. Hence, this Revision.

(2.) Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner ' Husband, apart from placing on record written notes of arguments, would point out that, parties are undisputedly husband and wife, who had entered into marital ties in May, 2010 and there is no further dispute that, Respondent no. 2 is born out of their wedlock. According to him, due to strained relations, Respondent Wife instituted proceedings by invoking Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) in the Court of learned Magistrate alleging maltreatment and domestic violence and thereby set up claim of Rs.25,000.00 maintenance per month for herself as well as child. That, learned Trial Court has disbelieved most of the allegations but has still awarded compensation. He very emphatically submitted that, Respondent No. 1 has acquired M.B.B.S, M.D. qualifications and she has gained employment as medical officer in Primary health Centre. That, she has not only permanent source of salary but also residential accommodation. She came to be appointed through Maharashtra Public Service Commission and her gross salary is Rs.1,38,192.00 According to him, thus, she was not at all dependent on him and she is competent and self sufficient to maintain herself. That, documentary evidence in the form of salary slip as well as affidavit of evidence strengthens such contentions. That, she is income tax payer. According to him, learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court have not correctly appreciated such quality of evidence and has awarded maintenance to her, which according to him, is erroneous, illegal and perverse. He makes a statement across the bar that, Revision Petitioner - Husband is still ready to bear the expenses of the child but not for wife, who has more than sufficient means to maintenance herself. Consequently, he seeks indulgence by allowing the revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Respondents, who also placed on record written notes of arguments, would support and justify the orders passed by learned JMFC as well as First Appellate Court. According to him, domestic violence was proved and, therefore, protection orders have been passed. He would submit that, though wife has employment, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 569, to enable wife to maintain the same standard of living, which she was placed and receiving while being married and he canvasses in favour of her entitlement to receive maintenance. According to him, both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence, settled principle of law and has committed no error whatsoever in granting maintenance. Lastly, he submits that, there is no merit in the revision and no illegality committed by either of the Courts below.