cri.apln.1047.10 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1047 of 2010 (Rajesh Durgayya Kondagurla vs. Sau. Vandana w/o. Rajesh Kondagulra and another) Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Nirbhay Chawhan, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. S.A. Bramhe, Counsel for Non-Applicant No.1. Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.2. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2011. 2011. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 25/05/2010 in Criminal Revision No.12/2010 upholding the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur dated 05/01/2010 in Misc. Criminal Case No.342/2009. The brief facts giving rise to the present application can be summarized as follows : The marriage of the applicant and non-applicant no.1 was solemnized on 09/11/2008. Non-applicant no.1 started residing at her matrimonial house at Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. For initial 5 to 6 days, the non-applicant no.1/wife was treated well and thereafter the applicant, his brother and other members of his family started ill-treating her. Non- cri.apln.1047.10 2/7 applicant no.1 lodged five proceedings before the learned Magistrate, Chandrapur under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Domestic Violence Act' for short). The applicant submitted his reply to the proceedings. By order dated 05/01/2010, the learned Magistrate, Chandrapur granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to non- applicant no.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed a proceeding titled as appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was being treated as revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 Chandrapur dismissed the revision by vide order dated 25/05/2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant is before this Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the proceedings itself as there was non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. He further submits that the learned magistrate failed to consider the reply filed by the applicant and only on the documents viz. a Salary Certificate placed on record, awarded exorbitant amount of maintenance. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that a criminal proceedings filed against the applicant and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by non-applicant no. 1 is pending, non-applicant cri.apln.1047.10 3/7 no.1 also initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant under the Domestic Violence Act. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that these simultaneous proceedings initiated by non-applicant no.1 is nothing but with an intent to harass the applicant by non-applicant no.1. The learned Counsel further submits that both the Courts have teated the allegations raised by non-applicant no.1 as if they are true and arrived at a finding that there exists prima facie case against the applicant before any trial and those findings cause serious prejudice to the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that both the Courts erred in not appreciating the fact that the income of the applicant is meager and he is having responsibility of the other family members like his brother and as such it was not possible for the applicant to give the maintenance as awarded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Revisional Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the father of non-applicant no.1 was in police department and as such by exercising pressure by the father of non-applicant no.1 false cases are filed against the applicant. With these submissions, the learned Counsel for the applicant prays for allowing the application. Per contra, the learned Counsel for non-applicant no.1 and learned A.P.P. support the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. cri.apln.1047.10 4/7 The learned Counsel for non-applicant no.1 submits that non-applicant no.1 within a very short period of her matrimonial life was subjected to torture, violent and ill treatment. The learned Counsel for non-applicant no.1 further submits that in spite of the demand made by the applicant and his family members and fulfilled by the father of non-applicant no.1, the applicant and his family members raised further demand. He further submits that non-applicant no.1 was subjected to an assault with sword and as such she was in state of fear and was left with no choice but to take shelter of her father. I have gone through the documents placed on record. The perusal of the application filed before the learned Magistrate, Chandrapur by non-applicant no.1 shows that non- applicant no.1 submitted that for only a week or so, non- applicant no.1 was treated well and thereafter she was subjected to ill-treatment and violence. It is not necessary to repeat the allegation in detail. The perusal of the application also shows that non-applicant no.1 claims various reliefs under Sections 19(1)(f), 19(6), 19(8) and 20 of the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant. Though learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below have failed to consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the perusal of the order cri.apln.1047.10 5/7 passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the learned Magistrate, while considering the application for interim maintenance, have heard both the parties and considered the documents placed on record. The perusal of the papers shows that reply was filed to the application by the applicant but he has not placed anything on record to show his income. It was only stated in the reply that the applicant is an employ of Western Coalfields Limited and he earns Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- as monthly salary. It was also submitted in the reply that non- applicant no.1 is doing tailoring job and she earns Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month. The perusal of the documents further shows that the learned Magistrate has called upon the salary certificate of the applicant for the month of October-2009 and November-2009 from his employer. The learned Magistrate on considering the documents found that the applicant is receiving approximately Rs.14,000/- per month as salary. The learned Magistrate also found that the brother of the applicant is major and is a adult member of his family and the applicant could not place on record to show that he has to bear the responsibility of his brother. The learned Magistrate further found that non- applicant no.1 is residing in her paternal home and as such the issue of providing shelter was not considered at priority. On considering these facts, in my opinion, there is no substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that the cri.apln.1047.10 6/7 learned Magistrate has erroneously passed the order of interim maintenance without considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The perusal of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Revisional Court further shows that it was submitted in the application of non-applicant no.1 that she met with an accident and due to breaking of the glass of the vehicle, her vision was seriously affected. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that an offence is registered against the applicant for driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and under the influence of liquor. Both the Courts further found that an eye of non-applicant no.1 was seriously affected and her vision is also affected due to the accident. The learned Magistrate specifically observed that the final out come of the said accident would be subjected the criminal case and also observed that non-applicant no.1 had to incur expenses on her treatment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed the same thing. On the backdrop of these observations of both the Courts, I am unable to accept the submission of learned Counsel for the applicant that both the Courts arrived at a finding that there exists a prima facie case against the applicant and the observation of both the Courts are only in respect of an offence registered against the applicant for the said expenditure incurred cri.apln.1047.10 7/7 by non-applicant no.1 and these considerations were for grant of interim maintenance. The other contention of learned Counsel for the applicant, that the father of non-applicant no.1 has pressurized for initiating false proceedings, cannot be accepted. Merely because the father of non-applicant no.1 was a police personnel is no reason to arrive at a conclusion that he had played some role for lodging false report against the applicant. Considering all these aspects, I see no reason warranting interference in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court. No case is made out by the applicant for exercising the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected. Hence, it is rejected. JUDGE *sdw