ANIL SOLANKI Vs. ILA SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 15 Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the leaned Magistrate had directed the recovery of the maintenance amount payable to non-petitioner No.1, Smt. Ila Solanki, under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act',for short) in an application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.06.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 04.04.2009.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Anil Solanki, married the non-petitioner No.1, Smt. 11a Solanki according to the Hindu rites and customs. However, subsequently certain differences arose between the parties. Therefore, Smt. 11a Solanki filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the learned trial Court. Vide order dated 13.04.2007, the learned trial Court passed an interim order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to her Since both the parties were aggrieved by the said order, they filed two separate appeals before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. However, during the pendency of the appeals, both the parties agreed that they did not wish to pursue the appeals. Therefore, they entered into a compromise. Vide order dated 22.05.2007, the appellate Court dismissed the appeals on the basis of the compromise. However, as the petitioner was not paying Rs.7,000/- per month to the non-petitioner No.1, in October 2007 she moved an application under Section 31 of the Act before the learned trial Court for recovery of the amount due. But, vide order dated 10.02.2009, the learned trial. Court rejected the said application ostensibly on the ground that the non-petitioner No.1 had an alternative remedy under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and she should file an application under the said provision. Taking her cue from the order dated 10.02.2009, on 07.03.2009 the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C before the learned trial Court. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 04.04.2009, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay arrears of interim amount totaling Rs.1,61,000/-to non-petitioner No.1 and to submit the receipt before the learned trial Court. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the revisional Court. However, vide order dated 22.06.2009, the learned revisional Court has upheld the order dated 04.04.2009.

(3.) Meanwhile, the petitioner also moved an application under Section 25(2) of the Act praying that the interim order dated 13.04.2007 be modified or altered. However, vide order dated 10.02.2009, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Section 25(2) of the Act, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Court. According to the petitioner, the said revision petition is still pending before this Court.