- (1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original respondent No.1 has challenged the order dated 30th September, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.341/2011 whereby the learned Judge has stayed the order dated 20th August, 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.21, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.46/2010 and has directed him to decide the main application expeditiously.
(2.) MR. B.H. Mankad, learned advocate for MR. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to submit that the said order was an ex parte order and that without even issuing notice to the petitioner, the appeal has been disposed of by staying the order dated 20th August, 2011 whereby the respondent No.2 herein had been directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the petitioner. It was submitted that the impugned order is in clear breach of the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and causes immense hardship to the petitioner inasmuch as, despite the fact that the proceedings have been filed since a considerably long time, till date, the petitioner has not been paid any amount by way of maintenance except a pittance of Rs.4,000/-. It was submitted that under the circumstances, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal is required to be restored to file to be decided in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner herein. The petition is opposed by Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 who has submitted that the impugned order is in consonance with the provisions of law inasmuch as, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner herein as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that the main application be decided expeditiously. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the appeal has been decided without issuance of notice to the petitioner herein. It is an admitted position that vide the order dated 20th August, 2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.21, Ahmedabad had directed payment of interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner herein. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has stayed the operation of the aforesaid order and has directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the main application finally; consequently, the order of interim maintenance stands stayed till the final disposal of the main application.
(3.) IT may be noted that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act have been pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate since the year 2010. Initially, vide order dated 17th January, 2010, the respondent No.2 was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- which came to be carried in appeal by the respondent No.2. In appeal, the said order appears to have been set aside and the matter came to be remanded to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for deciding the same afresh. Pursuant to the order of remand, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 20th August, 2011 has directed the respondent No.2 to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner herein. However, till date, the petitioner has not got the benefit of the interim orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the light of the fact that the earlier order of payment of Rs.6,000/- had been quashed and set aside and subsequently now by the impugned order, the order directing payment of Rs.7,000/- has been stayed. Thus, the impugned order, apart from the fact that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is even otherwise highly prejudicial to her interest. By staying the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate till the final disposal of the main matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has virtually rendered the order passed in favour of the petitioner nugatory and as such pending the proceedings the petitioner is left without any interim maintenance. Under the circumstances, before passing an order which seriously affects the rights of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge to issue notice to her and give her an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order being in clear breach of the principles of natural justice, therefore, cannot be sustained. However, while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal, this court is of the view that the petitioner should not be totally deprived of interim maintenance and that respondent No.2 should make some payment to the petitioner inasmuch as it is a question of survival for the petitioner and her son. As is apparent from the record of the case, the respondent No.2 has admitted an income of Rs.3,500/- per month before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Under the circumstances, for the present, assuming that this is his correct income, the court is of the view that by way of an interim arrangement the respondent should pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner and their son with effect from 7th March, 2010, till appropriate orders are passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2.;