GYAN CHAND Vs. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has directed that the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to be paid to the respondent.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that on 15.12.2005 the petitioner and respondent were married in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs in Ajmer. According to the petitioner, on 30.03.2006 the respondent had left the matrimonial home between 10 to 12 AM. He had tried to settle the problems. While he failed to settle the problems and to bring back the respondent wife, he had moved a petition on 04.12.2006 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Ajmer. Thereafter the respondent had registered a criminal case against the petitioner through FIR No.8/2007 for offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC. The respondent wife also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women (from Domestic Violence) Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Ajmer. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 19.08.2008. Thereafter, the respondent wife moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the husband. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 03.07.2009 granted Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. Being, aggrived from the said order, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent, has strenuously argued that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are two distinct and unrelated proceedings. Therefore, the finding given in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Act would have no bearing on a proceeding initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the respondent had also filed a case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC which is still pending. Thirdly, the respondent had clearly stated in her testimony before the learned Judge that she had been subjected to cruelty by the petitioner. Thus, she had shown sufficient reasons for staying away from the petitioner. Hence, the learned Judge was justified in not granting the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.