Delhi High Court
Sanjay Allen Cocker vs Anees Allen Cocker on 8 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 1118/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 8th December, 2011
+ CRL.M.C. 3578/2011
SANJAY ALLEN COCKER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Viraj R. Datar, Adv.
versus
ANEES ALLEN COCKER ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 23.09.2011, this Court has passed the following
order:-
"Further submits that vide an order dated 01.07.2011, the learned
MM has closed the Prosecution Evidence, thus, the right of the
petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses was closed.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition, wherein,
the learned ASJ, vide order dated 18.08.2010 has made following
observations in relevant paragraphs:-
"11. As reflected from the impugned order, on
01.07.10 the proxy counsel for present petitioner
sought an adjournment despite the fact that on
previous date adjournment had been allowed
subject to cost of ì.2,000/-. Upon non payment of
that cost and failure to seek time to comply, there
was no option with the learned magistrate but to
decline the adjournment request and close right of
the present petitioner to cross examine PW1.
Despite repeated queries learned counsel for
petitioner could not point out any illegality or
incorrectness or impropriety in the order passed by
learned magistrate and there is no fourth ground
on which revisional jurisdiction can be invoked
under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12.Further, conduct of the present petitioner in
refusing to pay even the admitted amount of
interim maintenance also calls for dismissal of the
present petition in view of the judgment in the case
of RAJIV PREENJA (supra). I do not agree with
argument of learned counsel fthat the said
judgment is not relevant since the same pertained
to a challenge against interim maintenance and
since in the said case the lady had not been paid a
single penny. For, it is the spirit of that judgment
that needs to be kept in mind; in the said judgment,
Hon'ble Delhi High Court cautioned the revisional
courts not to succumb to the dilatory tactics of
husband to drag on the proceedings without paying
the due interim maintenance and frustrate the
weaker section of society".
Further submits that initially the interim maintenance was granted
@ Rs.15,000/- per month.
It is further submitted that the respondent has in fact re-married
and the second husband/respondent has filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act,
Undisputedly, the respondent had married on 17.04.2007 at Delhi
according to the Hindu rights and rituals and with the consent of
parents with Mr. Satya Nam Shukla, s/o Late Sh. Hari Shanker
Shukla, R/o Village Pure Kinhouli, P.S. Masuuli, Tahseel Ram
Nagar, District Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per
the order passed by learned MM, till the re-marriage of
respondent i.e. 17.04.2007, he is ready to pay the total amount. It
is submitted that he has brought the Demand Draft No. 775218
drawn on SBI, dated 02.05.2011 in the name of respondent, which
is returned to the applicant after being seen"
2. I note that the impugned order dated 01.07.2010 was passed by ld.
MM due to the reason that the petitioner time and again sought adjournment,
which was allowed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/-. The second ground was that
since the petitioner has not paid the cost, due to this reason, the adjournment
sought was rejected and the right of the respondent to cross-examine PW-1
was closed.
3. The petitioner challenged before the Sessions Court against the order
dated 01.07.2010 and vide order dated 18.08.2010 ld. Special Judge
dismissed the same.
4. Being aggrieved from the said order, instant petition has been filed.
5. During arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner has not paid maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f
08.04.2005 to 10.07.2010.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has cleared all dues i.e. @ Rs.15,000/- per
month till date. The respondent does not dispute the same.
7. The petitioner is a person of means as he settled at Dubai for the last
20 years. If I do not allow the instant petition, he may continue to harass the
respondent.
8. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, I deem it
appropriate to allow the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1, subject to cost of
Rs.75,000/-. The amount shall be paid in favour of Welfare Fund for
Children and Destitute Women, Nirmal Chaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi
within 2 weeks from today. Proof of the same shall be placed on record.
9. Superintendent, Nirmal Chaya is further directed to keep this amount
in FDR initially for a period of 2 years and the same shall be renewed
periodically and the interest accrued thereon shall be utilised for the well
being of the needy children and destitute women.
10. I further make it clear that petitioner shall cross-examine PW-1 on the
day fixed and I expect from the ld. Judge to complete the cross-examination
on that date itself so that PW-1 should not be further harassed for coming
again and again. Thereafter one opportunity for defence evidence may be
given.
11. Crl. M.C. 1118/2011 is allowed on the above terms.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT,J
DECEMBER 08, 2011
jg
