Home > DV Judgements, Judgement > HC on confusion due to simultaneous proceeings in DV Act and CrPC 125

HC on confusion due to simultaneous proceeings in DV Act and CrPC 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 593 of 2009

Akhilesh Kumar Applicant. Versus

Smt. Sarita Respondent.

Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant / respondent. Date of Order: 29.03.2011

BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE

Clarification Application No. 278 of 2011 The words, “If any amount is paid under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner to the respondent, the same shall be adjusted against the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month directed to be paid by this Court” is causing the confusion. In fact, a proceeding was initiated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that proceeding, there was a direction to pay maintenance. Such maintenance was paid for sometime. Subsequent thereto, that proceeding was compromised. When no order was passed for payment of maintenance, in as much as the husband and the wife represented to the Court that they will henceforth live together. Subsequent thereto, wife was compelled to initiate a proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In that, the Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-. The Sessions Judge, at the instance of the husband, refused to interfere. This Court, as an interim measure, reduced the quantum of such maintenance from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. While doing so, the above observation was made. The said observation was made only for the purpose of ensuring that wife does not get anything more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Court did not permit the husband to adjust amount paid on earlier occasions in a closed proceedings with the amount directed to be paid by the Court by its order dated 14th June, 2010.

2

2. With the above clarification, the application made therefor is disposed of.

(Barin Ghosh, C.J.)

29.03.2011

Amit

Advertisements
Categories: DV Judgements, Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. September 8, 2011 at 11:46 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: