Delhi High Court
Sumer Singh Salkan vs Reema on 22 November, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 18th November, 2010
Date of Order: 22nd November, 2010
+ Crl.M.C.No. 418/2009
% 22.11.2010
Sumer Singh Salkan ... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neelam Grover with
Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate
Versus
Reema ... Respondent
Through:Respondent-in-person
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 18 th
August, 2008 whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner against an
order dated 29th September, 2007 of the learned MM fixing maintenance of
`25,000/- per month was dismissed. It is submitted by the Counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner had all along lived in Canada. Marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent did not click and differences arose soon
after the marriage with the result that the petitioner and respondent did not
live together. While the petitioner remained at Canada; the respondent
remained at India. The respondent's relatives were occupying high position in
police with the result that respondent launched various prosecutions and
criminal cases against the petitioner and an LOC (Look Out Circular) was
issued against the petitioner. For this reason that petitioner could not come to
India and prosecute the case. The advocate appointed by the petitioner to
take care of maintenance case also did not properly prosecute the case and
petitioner suffered ex-parte order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the
petitioner's version could not at all be considered by the MM, the petitioner
being ex parte.
2. Without going into merits of the case and looking at the fact that
the execution petition filed by the respondent was pending since long, it would
be appropriate if the petitioner is given opportunity to lead evidence before the
trial Court on furnishing adequate, security so that whatever order is passed
by the trial Court is also executed and the respondent is not again left high
and dry as the petitioner is not resident of India.
3. The petition of the petitioner is allowed subject to condition that
the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee of `10 lac or shall deposit an
amount of `10 lac with the trial Court within six weeks so that whatever order
is passed by the trial Court is duly executed. The petitioner is given liberty to
lead evidence before the trial Court and the trial Court shall decide the case of
maintenance on merits after considering the evidence of both the sides. The
order dated 29th September, 2007 of the trial Court fixing maintenance is set
aside subject to above condition and subject to condition that the petitioner
shall continue to pay the maintenance @ `10,000/- per month as already
ordered by this Court all along during this period. The petitioner shall produce
the entire evidence before the trial Court at one go and trial Court shall record
the evidence of the petitioner on day-to-day basis without postponing or
adjourning the matter for any reason whatsoever. The trial Court shall fix the
dates for recording of evidence as per convenience of the parties within 30
days of the deposit of `10 lac or giving bank guarantee of `10 lac. Once the
dates for evidence are given, these dates shall be adhered to by both the
parties and on the dates for recording evidence no adjournment shall be
given. In case the condition of deposit of amount is not complied with; this
petition shall stand dismissed.
With these directions the petition stands disposed of.
November 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
