SH. ANIL KUMAR Vs. SMT. ANJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, in case No. 2/3 of 2017, titled as Smt. Anjana v. Anil Kumar and another, dated 11.08.2017 , vide which, an application filed under Section 23 for grant of monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of the Proceedings in application under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stood allowed by the learned Court below whereby the present petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent/applicant from the date of filing of the application, till disposal of the main petition and also against judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, at Rampur Bushahr, in Criminal Appeal No. 423/2017, titled as Sh. Anit Kumar v. Smt. Anjana, dated 26.12.2017 , vide which learned Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upheld the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as both the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that respondent/applicant was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner and therefore, he was under no compulsion to maintain the lady. He has further submitted that even otherwise the amount of maintenance which has been ordered by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court, is on the higher side. No other point is urged.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no perversity either in the order passed by the learned trial Court or in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, because findings returned by both the learned Courts below are duly borne out from the records of the case and learned trial Court has allowed the application of the applicant therein after relying upon material on record, which clearly and categorically demonstrated that the applicant was the wife of the petitioner. He further submits that the amount of maintenance, which so stands allowed by the learned trial court, cannot be said to be on the higher side, because taking into consideration the fact that present petitioner is a Class-I officer, the amount which had been ordered to be paid to the respondent/applicant by the learned trial Court is just and reasonable and in fact, less than 1/3rd of the pay of the present petitioner.