HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINIAL PETITION No.10077 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused to quash the docket order dated 14.06.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2023 in M.C.No.114 of 2021, on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are legally wedded wife and husband and got married in the year 1991 and were blessed with two sons namely Manoj Kumar and Prabhu Kutty Naik. Their sons are earning and residing with respondent No.1/wife. It is stated that petitioner took care of the family and he purchased an independent house in Saroornagar for the welfare of respondent No.1 and children. While so, some differences 2 GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023 cropped up between the petitioner and respondent No.1, due to which, respondent No.1 necked out the petitioner from the said house in the year 2020 and since then, the petitioner is living in a rented accommodation. It is further stated that the petitioner tried to enter into the house to reside along respondent No.1 and their sons, but he was not permitted. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.13717 of 2023, seeking police protection and the said Writ Petition is pending before this Court.
4. It is further stated that in the year 2021, respondent No.1 filed Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.114 of 2021and obtained ex-parte order. Thereafter, on 28.11.2022, the petitioner filed a Petition to set aside the said ex-parte order, but the trial Court failed to consider the same and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.61 of 2023 before this Court and this Court on 25.01.2023, has disposed of the said Criminal Revision Case, directing the trial Court to entertain the Petition which was filed within the time limit and to pass orders afresh without getting influenced by orders of this Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is 3 GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023 the further contention of the learned counsel that the trial Court has allowed Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2023 in M.C.No.114 of 2021 filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte evidence dated 01.08.2022 passed in M.C.No.114 of 2021 by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- vide order dated 14.06.2023. The order of the trial Court has been complied with by the petitioner by paying the said costs. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed a Petition to receive additional documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and the same was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2023. Opposing the same, respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter in the said matter on 24.05.2023. However, the trial Court has passed the following Docket Order, dated 14.07.2023:
"Both parties present. Heard and perused the record. As the ex- parte in the MC was Set Aside, the respondent herein cannot be directed to pay the entire arrears as claimed in the MC, however in the interest of petitioner and considering the salary of respondent and as enquiry would take some time for disposal of M.C. the respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the petitioner commencing from June, 2023 (as MC was restored in June, 2023) till disposal of M.C."
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed this Criminal Petition to quash the Docket Order dated 14.06.2023.
4
GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023
6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a Petition filed to receive documents, the present order has been filed granting interim maintenance to respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrs.Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another 1, wherein the lordship at Para Nos.16 and 17 has held that "16. In the case of Messrs. Trojan and Company Limited Vs. Rm.N.N.Nagappa Chettiar 2, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:
It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case."
17. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindi and Others 3 held that:
Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner".
7. On perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for receiving additional 1 Civil Appeal Nos.6325-6326 of 2015 2 AIR 1953 SC 235 3 AIR 2010 SC 475 5 GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023 documents and the trial Court has numbered the same. It is not known as to how the Criminal petition filed under provisions of CPC was numbered by the trail Court. Furthermore, no application was filed by the petitioner before the Court below seeking interim maintenance. Despite the same, the Court below suo-moto has granted interim maintenance to respondent No.1, that too, in a Petition which was filed for receiving of documents, which itself clearly discloses that grave error and illegality has been committed by the Court below.
8. A perusal of the order dated 25.01.2023, passed in Crl.R.C.No.61 of 2023 discloses that a specific direction was given to the trial Court to entertain the petition which was filed within the time limit and to pass orders afresh without getting influenced by the orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Furthermore, inspite of the orders of this Court dated 25.01.2023 in Criminal Revision Case No.61 of 2023, the trial Court has passed the impugned docket order. But, on perusal of the impugned docket order, it is clear that no opportunity was given to the petitioner herein prior to passing the interim 6 GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023 maintenance. It appears that the trial Court in its impugned docket order has specifically mentioned that in the interest of the petitioner and considering the salary of the respondent and as enquiry in Maintenance Case would take some time for disposal of Maintenance Case, directed the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month, it clearly appears on the face of record that the order passed by the trial Court is not on merits. However, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner herein and without looking into the assets and liabilities statements of the parties, the trial Court has passed the impugned docket order which itself is irregular. The trial Court shall pass the interim orders only after considering the affidavits of the parties as to their assets and liabilities.
9. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the docket order dated 14.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2023.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the docket order dated 14.06.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2023 in M.C.No.114 of 2021 is set aside. The petitioner shall file a fresh petition with relevant provision before the Court 7 GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023 below and the same be considered by the Court below in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 11.10.2023 Note: Issue CC by 13.10.2023 b/o vsl 8 GAC,J Crl.P.No.10077_2023 26 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINIAL PETITION No.10077 of 2023 Date: 11.10.2023 vsl