- (1.) The Registry has pointed out two defects: firstly, the court fees of Rs. 2 has not been affixed on the revision petition. Secondly, the certified copy of the order dated 29.02.2008 has not been filed. Despite the lapse of three years, the defects have not been cured . However, even on merits, the case is a weak one for the following reasons: The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate had directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the Respondent-wife, Smt. Meena @ Riya Bairani, under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short) for her treatment as she is suffering from failure of kidney. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2008, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 29.02.2008.
(2.) Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has vehemently contended that there is no allegation of any domestic violence being committed by the Petitioner upon the Respondent-wife. Secondly, since the Respondent-wife does not stay with him, therefore, he is not liable to pay for her treatment.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned orders.;