YUSUF KHAN Vs. KISHWAR JAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the orders dated 22.01.2016 and 03.08.2015 passed by the Courts below and issuing the direction for adjusted the awarded interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.c.

(2.) According to the applicant that the respondent has filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 01.12014 before the trial Court. The respondent also filed an application under Section 23 of the said Act for grant of interim maintenance to the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. On the same date i.e. 01.12014 the respondent has also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner along with an application for interim maintenance. The learned trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2015 allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and awarded Rs. 1,500/- as interim maintenance to the respondent. The same Presiding officer on the same date also decided the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner. The learned Judge allowed the application for interim maintenance and awarded Rs. 1,500/- as interim maintenance.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved from aforesaid order filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Sessions Court, Bhopal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.924/2015. The petitioner also filed a Criminal Revision No.494/2015 against the order dated 22.01.2016 of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. Both the cases, i.e. criminal appeal and criminal revision were decided on the same date on 22.01.2016 by the same Presiding Judge and both the cases were dismissed by different orders. It is contended by the applicant that the impugned order is bad in law.