(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2010, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur and also aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2010, passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this court. By the former order, the learned Magistrate had granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 1200.00 per month to the respondent. By the latter order the learned Judge has upheld the former order.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.2009, the respondent-wife filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 ('the Act', for short) and sought relief on the ground of cruelty, desertion, mental and physical harassment. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the complaint and denied the averments made therein. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 3.7.2010, the learned Magistrate had awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,200.00 per month to the respondent. Against the order dated 3.7.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 28.10.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the maintenance order. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Lokesh Parihar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the respondent is the defaulting party as she had left the matrimonial home of her own volition and had abandoned three children with the petitioner. Secondly, the respondent happens to be a lady of loose character, who is staying with another person. Thirdly, the petitioner has already filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce from the respondent. Fourthly, since the petitioner himself does not earn much, he would find it difficult to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,200.00 per month to the respondent. For, he is saddled with the responsibility of three children as well as his old parents.