SHASHI BHUSHAN NARAYAN AZAD Vs. DEOKI PANJHIYARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases arising out of the same case were heard together and are being disposed by this common order .

(2.) The writ application is directed against the order dated 9.7.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. App. No.3 of 2008 affirming the order dated 13.2.2008 passed in Misc. Case No.7 of 2007 whereby and where-under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000 per month as interim allowance of maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that a marriage was solemnised in between him and Deoki Panjhiyara respondent No.2 on 4.12.2006 at Deoghar. Thereafter the petitioner took his wife to his place where after staying only for two and half months, she was taken by her brother to her parents house. While she was staying at her parents house, the petitioner whenever talked to her on telephone, her behaviour was quite rude as she held out threat for implicating him in a false case. The petitioner sensing some trouble at the hand of her wife, filed an infor-matory petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger but still waited for her to come. When she did not come, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed ex parte. Thereafter when the petitioner came to his in-laws' place, he was not only ill-treated but was subjected to threat and, therefore, the petitioner agair filed an In-formatory Petition on 30.4.2007. Thereupon the respondent No.2 having come to know about the decree passed in a matrimonial suit filed a complaint case, bearing P.C.R. case No. 141 of 2007 alleging therein that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code upon which cognizance of the offence was taken only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was later on decreed. However, in the meantime, respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara which was registered as Misc. Application No.7 of 2007 stating therein that after being married legally, when she came to her husband's house, she could know that her husband (petitioner) does have illicit relation with his niece. When she raised protest over it, her husband and other family members started subjecting her to torture and the other day, she was thrashed so badly that she suffered dislocation of fore-arm and elbow joint and, therefore, she left her matrimonial home. It was also pleaded that she does not have any source of livelihood as she is unemployed whereas her husband who is a cultivator and also a businessman is having income of Rs.50,000 per month. On the said pleadings, prayers were made to allow a sum of Rs. 10,000 as maintenance allowance and to direct the petitioner to return the ornaments which she was having as 'stridhan' and to award Rs.5,000 as cost of litigation.