SUREKHA NANASO JAGTAP Vs. DHANAJI JALINDAR JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with consent of parties Petition is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) Heard counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invites attention of this Court to the observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned order, and in particular paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 and submits that, the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli considered the appeal proceedings as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the proceedings before the Trial Court are initiated by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for sake of brevity hereinafter will be referred as "Said Act") against the first Respondent. An appeal filed by the first Respondent before the Sessions Court was also under Section 29 of the said Act. The appellate Court has caused the interference in the order passed by the learned JMFC, at Vita in Criminal Misc. Application No. 173 of 2017 and set aside the order passed by the learned JMFC directing the contesting Respondents to pay Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) as an interim maintenance, till the disposal of the aforesaid application. Learned counsel submits that the remedy provided to the aggrieved person under the said Act is an independent remedy, and therefore the appellate Court should not have considered proceedings of appeal as per the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.