1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Anil Sharma Vs. Smt. Shalini Sharma & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1374/2009) Date of Order :- 09th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Karma Veer, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has awarded an interim relief of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, Smt. Shalini Sharma under Protection of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short). Mr. Karma Veer, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to the respondent No.1, Smt. Salini Sharma, she had left the petitioner's company in 2007 itself. She has filed the application under the Act after a lapse of one & half years. During this period, she did not file a case against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC. Thus, obviously, there is no evidence to prove the commission of domestic violence against her. Secondly, the petitioner is a poor priest who hardly earns Rs.1,800/- per month. Yet, he has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2 respondent No.1. Thus, an onerous liability has been imposed upon him, which he finds difficult to discharge. Moreover, entire arrears of the amount have been directed to be paid within a period of one month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. There is no bar in law that prior to moving an application under the Act, the applicant should file a criminal case against the offending spouse under the provisions of IPC. According to Section 26 of the Act, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is without any merit. Moreover, a bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that according to the report of the Protection Officer, respondent No.1 was subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner. Hence, evidence does exist that she was subjected to domestic violence while living with the petitioner. As far as the petitioner's earing capacity is concerned, it does not afford a defence to the petitioner to plead that he is earning too little. For, it is not only his legal duty, but also his moral duty to maintain his wife. Similarly, if 3 the petitioner has been directed to pay the arrears amount within a period of one month, even if it creates a financial burden on him, he is legally and morally bound to discharge the same. Hence, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is, also, unacceptable. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-