BASHIR KHAN Vs. ISHRAT BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dtd. 21/1/2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.25/2021 confirming the order dtd. 9/2/2021 passed in MJCR No.1200291/2015 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri, whereby the application filed by respondent under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short "the DV Act") has been allowed by the trial Court with a direction to pay Rs.3,000.00 as maintenance amount to the respondent.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short "the Act") was filed by the respondent against her father-in-law (petitioner herein) and other in-laws pleading that her marriage took place on 14/6/2011 with Sarif Khan (son of petitioner) and two daughters namely, Natasha and Rimasha were born from their wedlock. On 30/6/2015, husband of respondent died and thereafter, she filed an application under Ss. 18 to 22 of the DV Act before the trial Court demanding maintenance of Rs.40,000.00per month to meet out her day-to-day needs. Thereafter, petitioner filed his reply denying the facts mentioned in the application and prayed for rejection of same. In the trial Court, the respondent herself examined as PW-1, Abdul Rafiq as PW-2 whereas petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and Shahid Israr as DW-2. After hearing both the parties, trial Court passed an order dtd. 9/2/2021 while holding liable to pay Rs.3,000.00 per month as maintenance to respondent. Being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was filed by petitioner under Sec. 29 of the DV Act before Sessions Court, Shivpuri, which was dismissed by impugned order dtd. 21/1/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by trial Court as well as by appellate Court are contrary to law and are liable to be set aside. He further submits that respondent is the wife of petitioner's son and respondent was living separately when her husband was alive. Her husband died on 30/6/2015. Petitioner is an old-age person and belongs to Muslim community and father-in-law of widow of his son is not liable for maintenance. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order.