RAHUL SANADHYA Vs. SAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners herein for assailing the order dtd. 29/11/2021 passed by the learned ACJM, Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.54/2021 whereby, the trial court accepted the application of the respondent Smt. Sakshi wife of petitioner Rahul Sanadhya and directed him to make payment of interim maintenance to her to the tune of Rs.5,000.00 per month under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and also restrained the petitioners from indulging in any kind of domestic violence with Smt. Sakshi.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Saluja submits that there was no justification for the trial court to have entertained the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners other than Rahul Sanadhya. He thus urges that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and, on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that no adverse order has been passed by the trial court against the petitioners Nos.2 to 6 except for a direction that no domestic violence shall be conducted with the respondent Smt. Sakshi. In case, any of the petitioners is aggrieved by his/her impleadment as a respondent in the application filed by Smt. Sakshi, such objection can be raised before the trial court who would be required to consider the same at the appropriate stage of proceedings. The direction given by the trial court in the impugned order to the petitioner No.1 Rahul for making payment of Rs.5,000.00 per month by way of interim maintenance to the respondent is, by no stretch of imagination, unjust or illegal.