VIKASH Vs. SANGEETA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to challenge order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Sonepat wherein interim maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been allowed to the respondents at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of application.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that respondents-complainants filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner. It was alleged that a marriage was solemnized between Vikash and Sangeeta as per Hindu rites and rituals on 24.04.2012, out of which wedlock, one female child namely Vernika was born. At the time of marriage, a sufficient amount was spent by the parents of Sangeeta, however, on amount of demand for a bigger car and harassment on account of inadequate dowry, she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 23.09.2013 along with the minor child. On account of beatings, harassment and cruelty meted out to her, FIR No. 477 dated 26.09.2013, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 427 and 506 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Having no source of income or means to support herself and the minor daughter, the respondent-wife filed an application for grant of maintenance along with interim maintenance before the Family Court at Sonepat. It was submitted that the petitioner is highly qualified and has done B.Tech and is earning approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. The District Judge, Family Court allowed interim maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of application. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant criminal revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. B. S. Rana, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rajinder Paul Advocate for the petitioner argues that the Family Court at Sonepat would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is argued that respondent and her family never lived at village Turukpur in District Sonepat. The marriage was solemnized between the parties at Bhadurgarh, and even presently the parental home of the respondent wife is at Bhadurgarh and not at Turkpur. It is also argued that the petitioner is a chronic patient of Asthma and unable to work, whereas the respondent is employed as a teacher in Hardayal Public School, Bhadurgarh and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- per month apart from earning Rs.5,000/- per month from tuition. Learned Senior counsel seeks to place reliance on Voter ID Card issued in the name of Yashwanti Dhayia, mother of the respondent wife, showing her permanent address at Bhadurgarh, as well as the Aadhar card issued to the respondent No. 1 in 2011, wherein residence is shown at Bhadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Moreover, the respondent has already filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Jhajjar in the year 201