GURUPREET SINGH Vs. HARMANJOT SINGH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.9.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.388/14, whereby learned Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the present petitioners and allowed Criminal Appeal No.329/14 preferred by the respondent and has enhanced the maintenance amount awarded in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore vide order dated 11.4.2014 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9/13 from Rs.7,000.00 to Rs. 10,000.00 per month and also directed to petitioner no.1 to furnish security bond of Rs. 15 lacs instead of Rs. 5-5 lacs each petitioner as directed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.11.2010 in Jullundhar, Punjab. Gradually fractions developed between both of them on account of place of abode. The petitioner No.1 was employed in Gudgaon, therefore, he was residing in Delhi. The respondent belongs to Indore and wanted to live in Indore and therefore, she was forcing him to come and live with her in Indore. To pressurising him for the purpose, she filed an application under Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner appeared before the Court and offered to keep her with him. But instead to come, she withdrew her application. Thereafter, she filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with an application for interim maintenance under Sec. 23 of the Act, which was allowed and interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000.00 per month was ordered. The Judicial Magistrate also directed to furnish a bond of Rs.5 lacs each for security of Streedhan. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, both the parties preferred appeals, which were decided by the common impugned order.

(3.) The present revision is preferred on the ground that the learned lower Court did not consider the fact that the respondent was not entitled for any maintenance as she herself has deserted the petitioner No.1 without any sufficient reason. The petitioner is still ready to take her back without any condition. The learned trial Judge did not properly consider that the gross income of the petitioner No.1 is only Rs.18,000.00 per month, which after deduction comes to Rs. 15,704.00 and it is very difficulty to live with such income in the City like Delhi. The respondent is a Post Graduate (M.Sc.(Bio Informetic) and was working on the post of Quality Controller in a Multi- National Farma Company before marriage and is still working and maintaining a salary account No.02811050054498 in HDFC Bank. The learned Trial Judge has failed to consider the documents relating to the income of the respondent. The marriage of the parties has been solemnized without any demand of dowry. After marriage the petitioner No.1 and the respondent were living together in Delhi separate from the family of petitioner. All streedhan, whatever it was, remained with the respondent and she had taken it back when she deserted the petitioner No.1.