HEM LATA Vs. VIJAY MOTIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Petition is maintained by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 20.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 1, Shimla, camp at Rohru (H.P), in Criminal Appeal No.5-R/10 of 2016, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4500/- per month to the petitioner has been modified to the extent of Rs. 2500/- per month.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent alleging acts of cruelty, character assassination, sufferings on account of bringing insufficient dowry, maintenance and basic amenities of life, solemnization of marriage at early age, as respondent had committed rape against the petitioner, threatening of solemnization of second marriage by the respondent and also narrating incidents of physical and mental torture. As per the petitioner, the marriage was solemnized with the respondent in the year 2011 and they are blessed with one daughter. The petitioner resided with the respondent in her matrimonial house until 2013, thereafter she is residing at her paternal house alongwith her daughter due to the compelling circumstances of domestic violence and lack of keenness, on the part of respondent in not taking the petitioner to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after going through the facts and circumstances of the case partly allowed the application of the petitioner and passed the protection orders and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4500/- per month from the date of order alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- in her favour. Against the said order, appeal was preferred by the respondent and the learned lower Appellate Court, set aside the order and monthly maintenance allowance awarded by the learned trial court to the tune of Rs. 4500/-, was reduced and modified to the extent of Rs. 2500/- per month. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was never served by the learned lower Appellate Court and she never engaged any counsel in the learned Court below and the appeal has been decided in her absence without hearing her. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioner was duly represented by the learned counsel in the learned lower Appellate Court, who has argued the matter and the learned lower Appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties adjudicated the case. He has further argued that the appeal deserves dismissal, as the contents of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner are not correct.