Delhi High Court
Kuku Ram vs Ram Beti on 9 November, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. MC No.3562/2009
Reserved on: 02.11.2011
Pronounced on: 09.11.2011
KUKU RAM ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Munjal, Advocate
Versus
RAM BETI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. H.S. Gautam, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing/ modifying the
order dated 11.9.2009 of learned ASJ which was passed in a
revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed
by learned MM granting maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the
respondent under Section 127 Cr.P.C per month.
2. The said revision petition was filed before the learned ASJ
challenging the order of learned MM under Section 127 Cr.P.C on
various grounds. However, the learned ASJ after hearing the
parties was of the view that the revision petitioner must deposit
the entire amount of interim maintenance as passed by learned
MM up to the date of filing of the revision petition. He adjourned
the matter to 7.10.2009 for the petitioner to do the needful and to
comply the order of learned MM to deposit the entire amount of
maintenance. Arriving on this conclusion, the learned ASJ referred
to the directions of this Court as made in Crl. MC No.3089/2008
and Crl.MA 11390/2008 on 26.2.2009 in the case of "Rajeev
Parinja v. Sarika and others. The said directions which were
reproduced by learned ASJ are as under:
"When a Revision Petition is filed by the
husband in the court of Learned ASJ against
an order of interim maintenance passed by
a learned MM in favour of the wife, the said
revision petition will not be entertained by
the learned ASJ till the entire amount of
interim maintenance due under the order of
the learned MM up to the date of filing of the
revision petition is first deposited in the
court of the learned ASJ. The respondent
wife and child, if any, should be permitted
by the learned ASJ to withdraw the whole or
part of the said sum, upon such terms and
conditions as may be determined by the
learned ASJ."
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the
learned ASJ has, instead of proceeding to hear the revision
petition on merits, has granted opportunity to the petitioner to
comply the order of learned MM and deposit the entire amount of
maintenance upto the date of filing of the revision petition in
terms of the aforesaid directions of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not controvert this
factual position. He, however, submits that the learned ASJ ought
to have heard the petitioner on merits of the case instead of
proceedings to pass such an order. To my view, the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely untenable in view
of directions given by this Court in the aforesaid case. The
aforesaid directions came to be passed by this Court in the
backdrop of the following observations and with which I am in full
agreement. The observations as made in para 15 of the aforesaid
order reads thus:
"15. The other phenomenon that requires to
be discouraged is that a more filing of a
revision petition by a husband against an order
granting interim maintenance to the wife
and/or child is construed as an implied stay of
that order. As a result the wife has to wait for
an even longer period for the implementation
of the order in her favour. The method that
should be deployed to overcome this hurdle is
for the revisional court to insist that the
husband's revision petition will not be
entertained till such time the husband against
whom the order of interim maintenance has
been passed, deposits the entire arrears of
interim maintenance up to the date of in terms
of the said order of the learned MM in the court
of the learned ASJ. Otherwise the husband will
be able to indefinitely postpone the
implementation of the orders of interim
maintenance by driving the wife from one court
to another without her receiving any payment
whatsoever. This only compounds the agony of
the wife and serves to defeat the interest of
justice. This situation ought not to be allowed
to continue if justice in the real sense should
be done to an Indian wife who is in dire straits
and unable to survive with her child for want of
economic means of subsistence."
5. In view of the above, I do not see any infirmity or illegality
in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. No orders as to
costs.
M.L. MEHTA
JUDGE)
November 09, 2011
rd
