VINOD KUMAR Vs. SHAKUNTALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is the male child begotten out of the wedlock inter se the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 instituted a petition under Sec. 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred in short as "the Act of 2005") before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul -Spiti at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The Court aforesaid on considering the evidence adduced before it held both respondent No. 1 and 2 herein to stand entitled for the affording of monetary reliefs to them by the petitioner herein. Accordingly, maintenance in a sum of Rs. 2000/ - per mensem stood adjudged for its being defrayed by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 herein besides a sum of Rs. 1000/ - per mensem stood assessed as maintenance for its being defrayed by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 herein.

(2.) Earlier to the institution of the petition before the Court aforesaid under the aforesaid provisions of law, a petition constituted under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred in short as "Cr.P.C.") was laid before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Adjudication thereon stood rendered subsequent to the rendition of an adjudication on a petition under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in pronouncing adjudication on a petition under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., as stood laid before him discounted the factum of an earlier adjudication standing rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, H.P. on a petition instituted under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005, whereby the Court aforesaid awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - per month to respondent No. 1 besides awarded a sum of Rs. 500/ - per month as maintenance to respondent No. 2 herein till his attaining majority. The liability to defray the sums aforesaid stood fastened upon the petitioner herein. A revision stood preferred therefrom by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, who rendered an adjudication in affirmation to the verdict of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu.

(3.) The petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the factum of the latter verdict rendered on an application preferred before him under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P., verdict whereof stood affirmation by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, inasmuch as its wanting in jurisdictional force arising from the factum of an earlier pronouncement rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu in a petition constituted before him under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 whereby maintenance in the quantums contained therein stood awarded in favour of the respondents herein, liability whereof for defraying the amounts of maintenance adjudged therein stood fastened upon the petitioner herein, enjoining reverence thereto by both the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu and the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu whereas each Court discounting the factum of assessment of maintenance in favour of the respondents in a previous adjudication by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu on a petition laid before him under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 rather has sequelled a legally interdicted adjudication by two Courts upon a similar besides an analogous issue encompassed in two proceedings launched in two parallel Courts each enjoying jurisdictional competence to award the reliefs as claimed by the aggrieved from each.