- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioners have filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.90/2012 whereby the learned Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the 'Act') affirmed and upheld the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.1242/2009 whereby the learned trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 12 of the Act filed by the respondent No.2-Smt. Anjali and directed the petitioners not to commit domestic violence in any manner upon the respondent and also directed petitioner Shri Santosh Sharma to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. It was further directed that the aforesaid amount would be payable from the date of the order. It is to be noted that presently the petitioners are agrieved mainly with that part of the order whereby the aforesaid amount was awarded to the respondent as maintenance.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence available on record to show even prima facie that petitioners or any other their family member harassed or ill-treated the respondent-complainant during the short period of less than thirty days in which she lived in her matrimonial home after the marriage or demand of dowry was made from her or from her parents but she left her matrimonial home at her own volition as she wanted to pursue her professional career as a Nurse and she joined on the post of GNM in the year 2009 before present application under Section 12 of the Act was filed and this material fact was not disclosed in it and this fact alone disentitles her to claim maintenance from her husband. It was further submitted that from the evidence made available on record, it is clear that respondent has her own independent and separate income sufficient to maintain her in a proper way and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband more particularly in absence of evidence about definite income of the husband. It was also submitted that there is no provision in the Act providing that maintenance is to be awarded to the wife even if she is having her own independent and separate income sufficient to maintain her. In the present case, the complainant-wife demanded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance and the Court has awarded Rs.8,000/- per month whereas she is getting salary of more than Rs.14,000/- per month which is far more than the amount of maintenance awarded by the Courts below.;