HANS RAJ Vs. DWARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dt. 18.07.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2010, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner -husband and upheld the order dt. 27.05.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai (Tonk) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), granting interim maintenance of Rs. 500/ - per month each to Respondent No. 1 to 3 and Rs. 750/ - towards rent per month, total Rs. 2,250/ -.

(2.) THE concise facts of the case are that Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') against the petitioner and five others, Respondents No. 4 to 8 herein. It was averred in the complaint that the complainants are wife and sons of the petitioner, but they have been dispossessed from their legal properties, the petitioner has also committed domestic violence with the complainants, therefore, protection as provided under the Act of 2005 may be granted. An application under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2005 was also filed by the complainants with the complaint regarding interim order/maintenance, mentioning therein that complainants having best hopes of the success in the original complaint, but it will take time, therefore, according to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2005, the complainants are entitled to get the interim maintenance to the rune of Rs. 5,000/ - per month alongwith Rent Rs. 750/ - per month.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Court after hearing arguments of the parties, vide order dt. 27.05.2010 allowed the prayer for interim maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal under Sec. 29 of the Act of 2005 before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court after considering the arguments of the parties, vide judgment and order dt. 18.07.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dt. 27.05.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dt. 18.07.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Court and the order dt. 27.05.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has preferred instant revision petition.