SANDEEP SHARMA,J. -
(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 5.8.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr. Appeal No. 75/2019, whereby appeal under S.29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'Act') having been filed by the respondents against order dated 2.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in CrMA No. 3660 of 2019 filed under S.23 of the Act, has been allowed and interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- awarded in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively by learned trial Court has been enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, petitioner-husband (hereinafter, 'petitioner') has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the respondents by way of application under S.23 of the Act prayed for interim maintenance, while averring therein that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised on 22.6.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Village Lamlehri, Tehsil and District, Una, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent No.1 further averred in the application that prior to initiating proceedings under the Act, she had moved various complaints to the Police qua acts of violence but subsequently, on account of consistent maltreatment, she was compelled to stay with her parents at her parental house. Respondent claimed that she was completely dependent upon her parents for her daily needs and facing great difficulty to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Respondent No.1 submitted before learned trial Court that the petitioner is an able bodied person, having finances from sale, purchase and repair of the mobiles at Village Lamlehri, from which profession, he was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. She claimed that she has not been paid a single penny by the petitioner for maintenance as well as for upkeep of her minor daughter and, at present, both had been living at the mercy of her parents and maternal uncle and as such, petitioner be directed to provide her maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month each and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
(3.) Petitioner, while refuting aforesaid claim, submitted before learned trial Court by way of reply to the application that at no point of time, he maltreated the respondents or taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry articles and gifts. He also denied the allegation with regard to beatings allegedly given by him to respondent No.1. Petitioner claimed before learned trial Court that engagement of his younger brother was proposed to be done with the sister of respondent No.1, but she was found to have relations with some other person. Petitioner also alleged that he had caught respondent No.1 red-handed, talking over phone to some unknown person. While denying the claim for interim maintenance, petitioner claimed before learned trial Court that in the month of September, 2018, respondent No.1 of her own, went to her parental house and she being a qualified and able bodied person, earns Rs. 300-400 per day approximately from tailoring, embroidery and beautician, which is sufficient to maintain herself as well as their daughter. Apart from above, petitioner specifically denied that he earns more than Rs.50,000/- per month, rather, claimed that he is unemployed and has no source of income, as such, in the aforesaid background, prayed for dismissal of application filed by respondents under S.23 of the Act, for interim maintenance.;