AJAY SHARMA Vs. ARCHANA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by an order dated 2nd August, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 47/2010 by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Gwalior, directing thereby the petitioner to pay the arrears of interim maintenance amount to respondent till decision on the application under Section 151 of Cr.P.C, filed by the petitioner to set aside the order of interim maintenance, this revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been submitted.

(2.) The facts, in short, just for the decision of the aforesaid cases, are that petitioner Ajaya Sharma was married to respondent Mrs. Archana Sharma on 16/2/97 at Gwalior and a child Ekansh was bom on 10th February, 2000 out of their wedlock. The petitioner Ajay Sharma was working as AGM in Larsen and Toubro Company in USA. It is alleged that there the petitioner developed an illicit relations with another lady and he used to torture and threatened the respondent and was also trying to get divorce from her. She was forced to leave for her parental house. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged by her at police station Mahila where a Crime No. 121/09 for commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A and 506-B of I.P.C. against the petitioner-husband was registered. Ultimately, the respondent-wife decided to take shelter in the house of her parents with her son. The petitioner-husband did not take care of her and her son and deprived of her from basic amenities. For redressal of her grievance, the respondent filed the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The trial Magistrate vide order dated 12th November, 2010, in Criminal Case No. 1290/2010 granted a sum of Rs. 15000/- towards monthly interim maintenance to respondent-wife. Then, the petitioner-husband filed the appeal under Section 29 of the said Act. The Appellate Court vide order dated 31 st January, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 615/2010 reduced the monthly interim maintenance amount up to Rs. 7000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, both the parties have filed the petitions against each other, bearing Misc. Cri. C. Nos. 1939/ 11 and 2470/11, which came up for hearing and decided by this court by a common order dated 9th May, 2011. The relevant portions of the said are extracted below: -

(3.) It is thereafter that the order was passed by the trial court challenged in the revision.