Ram Prakash Saklani vs State of Uttarakhand, Seeta Saklani and Ankit Saklani

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 7th of June 2010, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 3663 of 2009 Sita Saklani and Anr. v. Ram Prakash Saklani relating to offences punishable u/s 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Also, the order dated 21.06.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2010 Ram Prakash Saklani v. Sita Saklani is also challenged.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to respondent No. 2 on 26th of June 1982. Earlier, the respondent No. 2 filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 3,500/- per month. Subsequently, on 19.05.2007, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application u/s 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Magistrate, in which the Magistrate vide impugned order dated 07.06.2010, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. It further directed that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be not dispossessed from the property.

The aforesaid order dated 07.06.2010, passed by the Magistrate, is admittedly under challenge before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, where the present petitioner has already filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 49 of 2010. When the impugned order dated 07.06.2010, passed by the Magistrate, is already under challenge before the appellate court, it is not desirable on the part of this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate as the petitioner may raise all his pleas before the appellate court, and the appellate court is in a better position to appreciate the facts of the case. Apart from this, the interim order dated 21.06.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2010, shows that said court has already granted interim relief to the petitioner by directing that if the petitioner pays interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month out of Rs. 4,000/- per month awarded by the Magistrate, the operation of the order passed by the Magistrate shall remain stayed.

In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner, in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Stay Application No. 657 of 2010 also stands disposed of).