MARNENI DAVID RAJU Vs. MARNENI BALA SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Indrasena Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswararao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor-5th respondent. Respondents 2 to 4 are stated to be unnecessary parties. In Crl.M.P.No. 1615 of 2010 in DVC No. 41 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, the learned Magistrate passed the order under Section 23 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 06-07-2010, which is the subject matter of the present Criminal Petition.

(2.) The complaint of the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner herein was about being married to him on 27-01-2010 at which time cash and gold etc., were given as dowry and about the petitioner herein harassing her for bringing additional dowry. She claimed to have been driven out of matrimonial home and on the contents of the affidavit making such allegations, the learned Magistrate considered it prima facie evident that she was subjected to cruelty in the hands of the husband. The learned Magistrate also found the wife to be unemployed and considered that there are justifiable grounds to pass an order of protection and also grant of monetary relief. Therefore, while granting interim protection order under Section 18 (a) of the Act against all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case, the learned Magistrate directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife as interim monthly monetary relief under Section 20 (d) of the Act until further orders. The Magistrate also made it clear that the said order shall remain in force until further orders of the Court.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner contends herein, after referring to the various events that happened between him and his wife, that the trial Court ought to have issued notice to him before granting any interim maintenance and it should have given him a reasonable opportunity to place his submissions about being physically handicapped and being not in a position to earn sufficiently even for his own maintenance by imparting tuitions to the students, which is the only source of his livelihood. He claimed that the orders were passed by the learned Magistrate even before the day fixed for his appearance before the trial Court and without even asking the 1st respondent to provide proof of the income of the petitioner or the 1st respondent probablising any negligence on the part of the petitioner to maintain his wife. The petitioner, therefore, desired the order to be suspended pending the Criminal Petition and the order to be ultimately quashed in the Criminal Petition.