Delhi High Court
Varda Aggarwal vs Ravi Shankar Aggarwal on 19 January, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.2673/2008
Reserved on: 12.01.2012
Pronounced on: 19.01.2012
VARDA AGGARWAL ...... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Advocate.
Versus
RAVI SHANKAR AGGARWAL ...... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.S.C.Chawla, Mr.V.S.Pandey,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC against the order dated
18.3.2008 of learned M.M. in complaint case whereby the application for
interim maintenance of the petitioner under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. She was born on 24th
July, 1989. When the order dated 18.3.2008 was passed, the petitioner had
attained the age of majority. The learned M.M., while declining the interim
maintenance to the petitioner in Para 16 of his order, recorded as under:
"16. It is pertinent that as per the averments made on behalf
of Baby Vardha she was born on 24.7.89 and as on date she has
attained majority. As such at this stage, interim maintenance to
Baby Vardha is declined".
3. The impugned order is assailed mainly on the ground that the
petitioner being minor at the time of filing petition and having attained the
majority during the pendency thereof, she was entitled to interim maintenance
till the time of her attaining the majority. The further challenge is that she
was also entitled to maintenance including that of her education expenses of
doing MBBS and other expenses till she gets married.
4. The respondent, in his reply, has taken the plea that he has been
providing all the expenses of education etc. to the petitioner including that of
tuition fee, hostel charges and has been meeting all demands of financial
assistance of the petitioner whenever she so desired.
5. Without going into the controversy as to whether the respondent was
meeting all the expenses of the petitioner or that as to what was the amount
that was required by the petitioner for her maintenance, the fact remains that
the impugned order whereby the maintenance has been declined to the
petitioner solely on the ground that she was not entitled to maintenance on
account of having attained the majority was not sustainable under law.
Clause (c) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 125 CrPC provides for maintenance
for an unmarried daughter for the reasons as stated therein. Clause (b)
thereof, provides for maintenance for minor child. That being so, the learned
M.M. apparently seems to have overlooked these provisions in outrightly
declining the maintenance. So far as the entitlement of the petitioner till she
attains majority, her case was undisputedly within the ambit of Clause (b) of
Sub-Section 1. So far as her claim for maintenance after attaining the
majority, the same required to be examined by the Magistrate under Clause
(c) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 125 CrPC, These aspects need to be examined
by evaluating the evidence that may be available on record by the learned
M.M.
6. In view of my above short discussion, the impugned order of learned
M.M. suffers from illegality and not tenable. The same is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the learned M.M. to decide the issue regarding the
entitlement of the maintenance of the petitioner. The learned MM will decide
the entitlement of the petitioner as per law without getting influenced by the
above observations of this Court.
7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JANUARY 19, 2012
akb
