SANDEEP MEHTA - (1.) THE defect pointed out by the Registry is waived. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, heard on merits.
(2.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner wife who was awarded maintenance under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Protection of Women Act, 2005 (for short, the 'Violence Act'), 2005, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bassi vide order dated 11.10.2007. THE appeal preferred by the respondent husband against the order passed by the learned Magistrate came to be heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 8th January, 2008 set aside the order dated 11.10.2007 granting maintenance to the petitioner wife on the ground that the respondent husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was accepted and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed. Despite the decree, the petitioner wife did not go to live with her husband and thereupon, an application for divorce was filed, which was accepted and a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the husband, on the ground that the petitioner wife had deserted her husband without any reasonable cause. I have perused the order impugned in this petition. The factum of grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter decree of divorce on the ground of desertion is not in dispute. Once the competent Court had passed a mandate that the wife should go with the husband and perform her matrimonial duties then, the wife was under an obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Court. The wife after the order of restitution of conjugal rights was passed against her had only two options: (i) either to challenge the same or (ii) to comply with the same. If the wife chooses neither then she cannot be allowed to take the plea that the husband is committing domestic violence on her. If the wife does not perform her matrimonial duties without any justifiable cause, then she cannot be permitted to say that the husband is committing domestic violence on her. Of course, there may be situations where the wife has already made a complaint against the husband regarding cruelty and the husband as a measure of defence launches proceedings for restitution thereafter. In that situation, the wife may plead a justification for non-compliance of the restitution order. But that is not the situation in the present case. As it has been seen. the noncompliance of the order of restitution of conjugal rights resulted in the annulment of the marriage because of the conduct of the petitioner wife. Be that as it may, in view of the two orders, whereby initially the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the petitioner wife and subsequently, a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion having been passed against her as the learned lower Court was perfectly justified in refusing monetary relief (maintenance) to the petitioner. The order has also been affirmed in Appeal. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition being bereft of any force is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed. ;