R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2010, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has enhanced the interim maintenance granted to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from Rs. 1,500/ - per month to Rs. 5,00/ - per month, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 10.11.2009, the complainant -Respondent No. 1, Smt. Dimpal Alwani, filed an application against the Petitioner under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short) before the trial court for maintenance. In the complaint, she stated that she got married with the Petitioner on 24.7.2007. In this marriage, her father gave sufficient dowry. But immediately after the marriage, the Petitioner started torturing her and committed domestic violence. She further claimed that the Petitioner runs a coaching institute and earns sufficient income. Hence, her prayer for maintenance. The Petitioner filed his reply to the complaint and denied the allegations made in it by the Respondent No. 1. However, vide order dated 31.05.2010, the learned trial court directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,500/ - per month to the Respondents as maintenance. Against the order dated 31.05.2010, both the Petitioner and the Respondents filed their respective appeals before the learned appellate court. However, vide order dated 23.10.2010, the learned appellate court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner, allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 1,500/ - per month to Rs. 5,000/ - per month. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Anshuman Saxena, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has relied upon evidence which was not produced before the trial court when the trial court passed its order dated 31.5.2010. In fact, the learned Judge has relied on the evidence which was produced for the first time before him. The said evidence has not even been subject to cross -examination. Therefore, the learned Judge has exercised a power not vested in him. Secondly, the Petitioner had given a valid justification for sudden decrease in his income from Rs. 1,44,000/to Rs. 35,000/ -. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in not accepting his explanation and in enhancing the maintenance amount. Thirdly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for enhancing the maintenance amount.;