Hon’ble Judge: Jaishree Thakur, J
Contentions Raised by The Petitioner
- The petitioner husband challenged the order of the JMIC, Chandigarh in an appeal granting the respondent to claim compensation under the DV Act.
- It is contended that the JMIC, Jalandhar, while allowing the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, was based on an illegal finding and is liable to be set aside.
- The petitioner-husband contended that he has already paid interim maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 125 CrPC.
Contentions Raised by The Respondent
- The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act against the petitioner husband.
- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife would argue that both the courts below have rightly granted the relief to the respondent-wife under the D.V. Act.
- It is contended that mere passing of an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not preclude the respondent-wife from seeking appropriate reliefs under the D.V. Act, as both are independent proceedings.
Judgment
The court keeping in mind the duty to the husband to maintain the wife has directed the husband to pay the wife under the DV Act as he has a responsibility to allow his wife to live life with dignity according to their social status and strata but has to be within his capability to do so. Hence, the court reduces the rent allowance the wife has received keeping in mind his financial stability.
