KRISHAN CHAND Vs. JAGRITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. takes exception to the orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, in Criminal Case No. 294-III/2015 on 17.2.2017 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) , Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2017 on 22.12.2017, whereby he allowed the petition filed by the respondent by granting the following reliefs in her favour:

(2.) It is vehemently argued by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse as they have failed to take into account that the petitioner is regularly paying the maintenance to the respondent and his daughter and even the petitioner has in fact opened a separate bank account in the name of his daughter. The respondent as of her own volition and without sufficient cause left the company of the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance whatsoever. In the alternative, it is argued that the maintenance as otherwise awarded by the learned Court(s) below, is very much on the higher side and the petitioner, who was working as a waiter, is not in a position to afford the same.

(3.) Before adverting to the contentions put-forth by the petitioner, certain undisputed facts need to be noticed.