ROHIT CHAWLA Vs. SWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is aggrieved against the order dtd. 22/7/2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad whereby interim maintenance has been allowed to the respondent herein on an application filed under Ss. 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as the DV Act) and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000.00 per month from the date of filing of petition, which order has been upheld in an appeal preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

(2.) In brief, the facts as mentioned are that the respondent, who is married to Rohit Chawla i.e. the petitioner herein on 4/12/2011, filed an application under the aforesaid Ss. of the DV Act seeking interim maintenance. It was claimed that sufficient dowry had been given in the marriage on the demand of the petitioner, however, the petitioner and his family members were not happy with the dowry articles given and made a demand of car in the shape of dowry. The parents of the complainant had given an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the petitioner to purchase a car, but there was a demand for bigger car. As the respondent was unable to fulfil the demands of dowry, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, which resulted in a petition being preferred under the DV Act. The said application was contested on a plea that the complainant was earlier married to one Anshuman and it was her second marriage that was performed with the petitioner herein. It was submitted that without obtaining a valid divorce, second marriage would be null and void. In this regard, a petition under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act had already been preferred to declare the marriage as null and void, which is still pending consideration. It is further submitted that as the marriage was not a legal one, the complainant-respondent would not be entitled to maintenance, which has been allowed by the JMIC and stands affirmed in appeal preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

(3.) The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad vide impugned order allowed the interim maintenance by taking into account the statement of income of the petitioner for the month of June, 2018 to show that he was earning Rs.75,237.00, while also placing reliance on a judgment rendered in Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 400 to the effect that the husband cannot deny the claim of maintenance on the ground that wife was previously married and the second marriage was void. In appeal filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, similar grounds were agitated while also contending that there was a delay in filing of the complaint. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, which has led to the filing of the instant revision petition.