- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court ") in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012, whereby the appeal of the appellant-petitioner filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') was dismissed, upholding the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Case No. 116/2009, whereby learned Trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2005 filed by the respondent-wife and directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 1,000/- to respondent-wife Soniya Kanwar and Rs. 1,000/- to his daughter Resu Singh, total Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the complaint. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and perused the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, I am of the view that the provision is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The matter is still pending before the learned Trial Court and the parties will be free to lead their evidence before the learned Trial Court at later stage, as at this stage, only interim maintenance has been granted to the respondent-wife by the both the Courts below. In my considered view and in the conclusion, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner being husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition, having no merit, is, hereby, dismissed.;