MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. KIRAN GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.92/2015 by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma, District Anuppur, whereby the Appellate Court confirmed the order dated 27.06.2015 passed by JMFC in MJC No.96/2014. The Court of JMFC vide order dated 27.06.2015, has allowed the application, under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife Smt.Kiran Gupta.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that respondent No.1-Smt. Kiran Gupta is legally wedded wife of the petitionerMahesh Chandra Gupta, who was appellant in Criminal Appeal No.92/2015. Smt. Kiran has filed an application against her husband under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also filed an application for granting interim maintenance during the pendency of that application. She claimed that she was married to Mahesh Chandra Gupta and a son was born from this wedlock. Petitioner-Mahesh was demanding more articles and money as dowry. On denying, petitioner treated his wife with cruelty and used to beat her therefore, on 23.05.2013, she left her matrimonial home and started living with her father at her parental home alongwith her son. She was not having any means to maintain herself as well as her son. Petitioner-Mahesh is having sufficient means to maintain his wife and son, but he is neither maintaining them nor giving a penny to maintain his wife and son. Due to the domestic violence caused by the petitioner-Mahesh and his family members, Kiran was living separately and then filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also filed an application seeking a sum of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance till the disposal of that application.

(3.) Petitioner Mahesh has opposed the application filed by the respondent, before the lower Court and contended that she/respondents is living separately on her own volition. He has not caused any domestic violence against his wife and son. He is not having sufficient means to maintain himself. The petitioner, by way of this revision has challenged the order on the ground that learned Courts below have erred in passing the impunged order, and passed the order against him without there being any material against the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.92/2015 and also prayed to set aside the order dated 27.06.2015 passed in MJC No.96/2014 by JMFC Court, as they are perverse, illegal and contrary to the law.