DIVIK OSTWAL Vs. AMBIKA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner husband assails the judgment dtd. 6/5/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 91/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner husband has been dismissed and the order dtd. 31/8/2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 02, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Misc. Case No. 16/2022 (CIS No. 191/2022) has been affirmed. By the said order dtd. 31/8/2024, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent wife under Sec. 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and awarded maintenance of Rs.40,000.00 per month in favour of the respondent wife from the date of application, i.e., 15/2/2022. The impugned appellate judgment, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Ss. 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(2.) By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner wife assails the impugned order dtd. 6/5/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 103/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking enhancement of interim maintenance was erroneously dismissed, affirming the order dtd. 31/8/2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 16/2022, which had granted an inadequate interim maintenance of Rs.40,000.00 per month in favour of the wife from the date of application, despite the sufficient means, status, and earning capacity of the respondent husband, rendering the impugned orders illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. Common Facts of the Case

(3.) That the marriage between the petitioner husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 11/5/2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter was born. After marriage, the parties initially resided together and later shifted to Mumbai. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately in the year 2021, whereafter the respondent wife came to reside at Jodhpur.