AMIT MITHRANI AND OTHERS Vs. SHOBHNA MITHRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforementioned petitions are being disposed of by an common order, given, common question of fact and law being involved in both petitions.

(2.) Both Criminal Revision Petition No. 145 of 2016 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 398 of 2016, stand respectively directed by Amit Thrani and others and by Shobhana Mithrani, against the common verdict recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2),Shimla in Cr. Appeal No. 55-S/10 of 2015 and Cr. Appeal No. 57-S/10 of 2015, whereby, he modified the quantification, of, interim per mensem maintenance amount adjudicated, by the learned trial Court, from, Rs. 16,000/- per mensem to Rs. 15,000/- per mensem. The aforesaid quantum of ad interim per mensem maintenance, was, respectively apportioned in a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per mensem vis-a-vis the wife, of, one Amit Mithrani and in a sum of Rs. 6000/- per mensem vis-a-vis the child, of, one Amit Mithrani. The visitorial rights of one Amit Mitharni vis-a-vis his child, born out of his wedlock with one Shobhna Mithrani were, however, preserved.

(3.) Apparently, the aforesaid apposite order was pronounced by both the learned Courts below, upon, theirs exercising jurisdiction vested in them under Section 23, of, the of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: