Ramanand Amit vs Ruhi Ramanand
2011 Latest Caselaw 101 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+          CRL.M.C. No.28/2011 & Crl.MAs. 121-122/2011


                                                   Decided on 07.01.2011

IN THE MATTER OF :
RAMANAND AMIT                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                                 Through : Mr. Ajay Rai, Adv.

                    versus


RUHI RAMANAND                                                ..... 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 petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for

setting aside/quashing of the order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned

ASJ, disposing of his appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of

Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act'), against the

ex parte judgment and order dated 13.4.2009, passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Delhi.

2. Under the ex parte judgment dated 13.4.2009, the Mahila Court

directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent, rent for the house in which

she resides, at the rate of `2,500/- from April 2008 onwards, and thereafter

pay a 10% increase in each successive year, alongwith `3,000/- per month

as maintenance from the date of the complaint till the complainant is legally

entitled to the same. The petitioner was also directed to pay `50,000/- as

lump sum compensation and `5,000/- as litigation expenses to the

respondent within 3 months from the order. He was called upon to clear the

arrears of maintenance within 6 months from the date of order and

thereafter, make the monthly payment on or before the 10th day of every

month, by way of money order or by depositing the amount in the account

of the respondent.

3. While setting aside the aforesaid ex parte judgment dated

13.4.2009 and calling upon the parties to appear before the trial court, the

learned ASJ directed that as interim relief, the appellant would continue to

pay to the respondent, a sum of `3,000/- as maintenance and `2,500/- as

rent from April 2008 onwards till the petition filed by her under Section 12

of the Act is decided on merits. It was clarified by the appellate court that

the respondent would be entitled to interim maintenance from the date of

the complaint itself and the petitioner would be liable to pay arrears, if any,

on the final disposal of the petition under Section 12 of the Act.

4. On a pointed query raised as to whether the petitioner has

complied with the interim order dated 5.4.2010, counsel for the petitioner

admits that out of the amount of `1,09,500/-, admittedly due under the

impugned order, he has paid only a sum of `45,142/- to the respondent.

He states that in execution proceedings, attachment of certain household

articles has taken place. He however is unable to explain the reason for his

having approached the Court after a delay of 9 months.

5. As far as the impugned order is concerned, it is stated by the

counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not the wife of the petitioner

and he was not in a relationship with her in the nature of marriage and

hence, she is not entitled to invoke the Act. He further submits that the

petitioner has his own family to maintain and is not in a position to comply

with the impugned order, whereunder interim relief was granted in favour of

the respondent.

6. In light of the fact that till date, the petitioner has not paid the

entire sum due and payable as per the interim order of 5.4.2010 and he has

been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 9 months

in assailing the impugned order, it seems that the present petition has been

filed more with an intention to delay the execution proceedings, rather than

for appealing against the impugned order on merits. The submission of the

counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not the wife of the petitioner

and that he was not in a relationship with her in the nature of marriage, is a

factual averment, which can only be established before the Mahila Court.

This Court cannot go into the said issue at this stage. None of the grounds

taken by the petitioner are of such a nature so as to invoke the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as sought by the petitioner.

7. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that insofar as the

petition filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act is concerned, the

petitioner has filed his reply thereto and the matter is now listed before the

trial court in February 2011 for completion of pleadings and for further

proceedings. It is for the petitioner to make his submissions on merits,

before the said Court.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court

declines to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is therefore

dismissed, along with the pending applications.

                                                         HIMA KOHLI,J
JANUARY     07, 2011
sk