MADHU BALA Vs. PRITAM KUMAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18. 2. 2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short `the appellate Court') whereby he partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 24. 9. 2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur (for short `the trial Court' ).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner submitted an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `the Act of 2005' ). After hearing the trial Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner for maintenance and house rent per month.

(3.) MR. Ratan Kaushik, counsel for the respondent submits that the appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment.