- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.10.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No.3, Ajmer, whereby the learned Magistrate had granted an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. under the Provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act, 2005', for short) to the respondent No.2, Smt. Deepa Lalwani @ Hansika Gangwani. He has also challenged the order dated 13.11.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Bhavesh Gangwani and the respondent No.2, Smt. Deepa Lalwani, were married on 27.03.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs. However, due to certain matrimonial disputes, the couple parted. Subsequently, Smt. Deepa Lalwani, filed an application under the Act, 2005 and sought a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Vide order dated 11.10.2010, the learned Magistrate granted a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the respondent No.2. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge by way of filing an appeal. However, vide order dated 13.11.2010, the learned Judge upheld the order dated 11.10.2010 and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Peush Nag, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since the respondent No.2 had left the matrimonial home of her own volition, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned orders. There is no bar in the Act, 2005, which debars a lady from seeking maintenance even if she had left the matrimonial home of her own volition. Moreover, no evidence has been produced by the petitioner to substantiate this contention. According to respondent No.2, she had been turned out from her matrimonial home. Hence, considering the facts of the case, the learned trial court was certainly justified in granting a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.2. Even the order dated 13.11.2010, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. ;