Shri Punit Malhan vs Smt. Neha Malhan & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2692 Del

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                     Crl.M.C. No.1154/2009

                                   Date of decision: 17th July, 2009

     Shri Punit Malhan                         ....Petitioner
                 through: Mr. M.R. Chanchal, Adv.

                             VERSUS

     Smt. Neha Malhan & Ors.                     ....Respondents
                through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
       1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
            Judgment?
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

  GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)
 *
1.   By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner

assails an order dated 22nd October, 2008 passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate fixing interim maintenance in proceedings

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is also aggrieved by

the revisional order dated 2nd March, 2009 passed by learned ASJ

when the petitioner assailed the aforenoticed order of learned

Metropolitan Magistrate.

2.    Perusal of the order shows that courts below have arrived at a

purely interim finding assessing the petitioner's income as Rs.12,000/-

per month and have issued a direction to the petitioner to make

                                             Contd.....P/2
                                    -2-

payment of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,500/- towards

his child. Both the courts have considered all documents which were

placed before it and have noticed the fact that the respondent no.2,

the child of the petitioner and respondent no.1, was studying in a

public school whose expenses which included her food, school fee,

tuition fees, transportation etc. alone would be substantial. The court

has also noticed that no arrangement has been made towards

residence or the other expenses of the respondents by the petitioner.

No document or proof of the respondent-wife being employed or

having any source of income, has been produced.

3.   In any case, the orders passed by the courts below are merely

interim orders. The trial court is yet to take a final view in the matter.

4.   For all these reasons, I find no merit in this petition which is

hereby dismissed.

5.   Needless to say, the trial court shall take a considered view in

the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein.

Crl.M.A. No.4206/2009

     In view of the order passed in the main petition, this application

is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.



July 17, 2009                                Gita Mittal, J.

aa