Delhi High Court
Sheikh Raziuddin vs Baby Tanzila Thr. Her ... on 7 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. REV. P. 341/2010 and CRL.M.A. 8328-30/2010
Decided on 07.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
SHEIKH RAZIUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suman Kapoor, Advocate
versus
BABY TANZILA THR. HER MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN
HASEEN BANO ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner assailing an
order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on an
application filed by the respondent, minor daughter of the petitioner through
her mother, filed under Section 127 of the Cr.PC, seeking alteration of the
monthly allowance being paid by the petitioner to her, in terms of an earlier
order dated 22.04.1999, recording the compromise arrived at between the
parties. As a result of the compromise, the earlier petition for maintenance
filed by the respondent through her mother under Section 125 of the Cr.PC
was disposed of in view of an undertaking given by the petitioner that he
would pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to the respondent as maintenance
from the date of filing of the petition, till she attains majority or till the time
she gets married, whichever is earlier.
2. On enquiry from the counsel for the petitioner as to why he has
filed the revision petition in this Court directly without approaching the Court
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he states that the petitioner had
preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
registered as CR No.49/2010, but he withdrew the same with liberty to
assail the impugned order in this Court in view of the fact that he was
confronted with a judgment entitled Rajeev Preenja vs. Sarika & Ors.
reported as 2009(159) DLT 616, whereunder a Single Judge of this Court
has directed that when a revision petition is filed by the respondent in the
court of the learned ASJ, against an order of interim maintenance passed by
a Metropolitan Magistrate in favour of the wife, the said revision petition
shall not be entertained, till the entire amount of interim maintenance due
under the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate upto the date of filing of the
revision petition, is deposited in the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge.
3. A perusal of the impugned order in the present case shows that
it is not one passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., but passed under
Section 127 of the Cr.PC, whereunder the respondent has sought alteration
of the monthly allowance already fixed between the parties. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid to the respondent, the
uptodate maintenance @ Rs.500/- on a monthly basis and that apart, the
petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.1 lac per year to the mother of the minor
respondent in terms of the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate on a petition filed by the mother of the respondent
under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986 for Mehr, maintenance and return of property. He states that in all, a
sum of Rs.9 lacs was directed to be paid as a lump sum payment for
maintenance to his wife for the period of nine years, i.e., from the date she
got a divorce in the year 1996 till she solemnised her third marriage in the
year 2005. He states that the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order
before this Court in a revision petition in which, he has been directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.6 lacs out of the sum of Rs.9 lacs, which has been so
deposited by him. He further volunteers to deposit before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in the revision petition, proposed to be filed by
him at least 50% of the arrears payable to the respondent calculated @
Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. Apart from
the aforesaid amount, the petitioner shall also pay Rs.5,000/- per month to
the respondent from the date of passing of the impugned order, till the
interim application he proposes to file before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge is disposed of one way or the other.
4. With the aforesaid orders, the present revision petition is
disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to assail the impugned
order dated 29.04.2010 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge in
accordance with law. At the time of admission of the said revision petition,
the petitioner shall be ready to deposit at least an amount of Rs.1 lac to be
released to the other side, in terms of the orders that may be passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner shall also ensure that the
maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- as directed to be paid to the respondent
in the impugned order, shall be paid w.e.f. 01.05.2010 onwards, on a
monthly basis, on or before the 7th day of each calendar month, after
adjusting Rs.500/- already paid for the months of May and June, 2010,
respectively.
5. The revision petition is disposed of alongwith the pending
applications. It is made clear that while disposing of the present petition,
and leaving the petitioner to seek his remedies elsewhere, this Court has
refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the
learned Additional Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to decide the revision
petition proposed to be filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.
DASTI.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 07, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
