Crl.
Misc.
M-39734 of 2012 Gugnani Soni”
2013. 07.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH integrity of this document Crl.
Misc.
M-39734 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:
19. 07.2013 Sandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh ...Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.None for the respondent....RITU BAHRI, J.
The challenge is for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2012 by which the appeal filed by Amarjit Singh against the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha for granting maintenance is allowed.
The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent on 21.09.2008.
Thereafter, due to ill-habits like drinking liquor and taking drugs, he started beating her mercilessly.
Therefore, they could not live together and she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 20.02.2009 and petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women Crl.
Misc.
M-39734 of 2012 Gugnani Soni”
2013. 07.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and from Domestic Violence Act.
integrity of this document During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner was granted divorce on 28.01.2011 and she filed a petition for maintenance.
While allowing the application for maintenance, the trial Court has granted an interim maintenance vide order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) at the rate of ` 2000/- per month.
A direction was given to respondent to provide a separate residence consisting of two rooms or rent at the rate of ` 1500/- per month.
On appeal, this order was set aside.
Reliance is being placed upon the case law cited as Inderjit Singh Grewal versus State of Punjab and another, 2011 (4).RCR (Crl.) I.
As per the facts of the above said case, the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not maintainable after husband and wife obtained divorce by mutual consent.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that this application was not maintainable, even though the wife had filed an appeal against that decree of divorce on the ground that it had been granted by way of playing fraud.
In the facts of the present case, even though the petitioner has been granted divorce on 28.01.2011 but the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is filed on 9.6.2009, the application is maintainable.
However, at this stage, counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer for maintenance from date of filing of the present application till the date when she has been granted Crl.
Misc.
M-39734 of 2012 Gugnani Soni”
2013. 07.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and divorce.
The order dated 22.10.2012 is modified to that extent, the integrity of this document petitioner is at liberty to take all the pleas at the final stage of argument of the application.
Disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 19 7.2013 sonia g.