Gurnek Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Hon''ble Prakash Tatia, Chief Justice

Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

No body appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2, even after fresh notice sent to the respondents on pleading of no instruction by respondents'' counsel on 2nd September, 2011.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2007 by which the petitioner''s appeal against the interim maintenance order dated 17.1.2007 and 12.2.2007, has been dismissed. It appears that the Trial Court awarded ad-interim maintenance to the respondents at the rate of 14,000/-per month.

This Court, vide dated 16.5.2007, modified the quantum of ad-interim maintenance and directed the petitioner to deposit the same through cheque in the name of respondent no.2, wife of the writ petitioner. Upon this condition, the ad-interim order of maintenance was stayed. In pursuance to order dated 16.5.2007, the petitioner continued to deposit the maintenance at the rate of 8000 per month and a cheque of Rs. 24,000/-was handed over to respondent no. 2 in the Court on 30.8.2007.

In view of the above facts, it appears that by interim order passed by this Court, the ad interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court has been modified to Rs. 8000/-and this position is continued since the year 2007. The respondents'' counsel has pleaded no instruction and hence notice by registered post was sent to respondent no. 2, which has been duly received, as per office report.

In view of the above reason, I do not find any reason to keep the matter pending in this Court in the writ jurisdiction in a matter where case is pending before the Trial Court under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed by confirming the interim order dated 16.05.2007 to be continued during the pendency of the C.P. Case No. 1765 of 2006, under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and the petitioner shall be paying Rs. 8000/-per month continuously to respondent no. 2 and that will be the subject to the final outcome/order passed by the Trial Court. In view of above, the interim order of stay of trial is vacated subject to the above condition that Rs. 8000/-per month shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 and if respondent no. 2 is not available the amount will be deposited in the Court to be paid to respondent no.2.

Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court with a direction to decide the matter expeditiously, after giving notice to the respondents, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Court.