Criminal Misc. No. M. 36967 of 2011 v. Baldev Parkash

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short–Cr.P.C.) is the order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by Shri C.L.Mohal, Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which respondent Baldev Parkash has been allowed to meet the child.

Briefly stated that the present petitioner filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, against Baldev Singh and others. She claimed interim maintenance in that petition. The learned trial Court allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to the petitioner and minor from the date of filing the present application , vide order dated 28.2.2011 passed by Shri Akashdeep Mahajan, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri Criminal Misc. No. M. 36967 of 2011 2

The said order dated 28.2.2011 was challenged by Baldev Singh by filing the appeal. Pratibha also filed revision for enhancement of maintenance amount.

Baldev Parkash petitioner withdrew the appeal but has submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that he be allowed to meet the minor. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri vide impugned order dated 15.11.2011 allowed Baldev Raj to meet the minor child for one hour from 11.15a.m. to 12.15p.m. on second Saturday of each month in Community Center Sector 18, HUDA, Jagadhri. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by Shri C.L.Mohal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order of Additional Sessions Judge, directing the petitioner to allow the minor on 2nd Saturday of every month is against the law and beyond pleadings. It is submitted that Baldev Singh can file petition under Section 25 of the Guardianship Act, 1956 and only in those proceedings, the Court can order this type of relief, even in the appeal under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the said relief should not have been granted. It is further contended that the amount of compensation is on lower side.

I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. Criminal Misc. No. M. 36967 of 2011 3

In a matrimonial dispute under the provisions of Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, interim order can be passed by invoking the said provisions. The present petitioner has been allowed interim maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month for herself and Rs.1500/- per month for minor. The Appellate Court/Revisional Court has the power to allow the father to meet the minor and as such the impugned order cannot be said to be in any way illegal. No doubt, separate petition under Section 25 of the Guardianship Act lies but the Court cannot ignore the fact that father has a right to meet the child at least once in a month.

So far as the enhancement of interim maintenance is concerned, both the Courts below after appraisal of the documents available on the file, have reached to the conclusion that amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month each is sufficient. No contrary document has been placed on the file.

So, in view of the above discussion, the present petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. October 09, 2012 (K. C. PURI) JUDGE