Surinder Jain & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3561 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             CRL.REV.P. 299/2012

                                               Date of Decision:28.05.2012

SURINDER JAIN & ORS.                                         ..... Petitioner
                  Through:                Ms.Pinky Anand, Sr.Advocate
                                          with Mr.Jatin Sehgal, Mr.Harish
                                          Malik, Advocates.

                     versus


STATE & ORS.                                        ..... Respondent
                              Through:    Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This is a revision petition assailing the orders dated 11.5.2012 and 30.4.2012 of the learned ASJ.

2. Vide order dated 30.4.2012, the petitioners were released on bail and following order came to be passed:

"Be as it may, the applicant has agreed that a sum of rupees ten lacs in the form of FDR shall be made in the name of the complainant and handed over to her. However she will not be at liberty to withdraw the said amount till the decision of court of competent jurisdiction decides the question of alimony. In the meantime, the applicant has also conceded that as per the list of dowry articles, same shall be returned. In the meantime, the applicant shall also pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month

towards sustenance of the complainant who had to part company. This amount shall be paid to the complainant only till the time the court of competent jurisdiction decides the quantum of maintenance to be paid to the complainant. The amount shall be deposited in the account of the complainant Ruchi Jain nee Ruchi Singhal bearing No. 605101011000412, Vijaya Bank, IFSC Code Vij0006051 on or before 10th day of each calendar month".

3. Thereafter, an application was filed seeking modification of this order dated 30.4.2012. The main plea that was taken was that the petitioners being not present before the learned ASJ on 30.4.2012, no concession of their counsel agreeing to pay Rs. 10 lakhs in the name of the complainant could have been made by their counsel Sh. K. Mukesh. The said application for modification of the order of 30.4.2012 came to be dismissed by the learned ASJ vide his order dated 11.5.2012, who reasoned as under:

" At the time of arguments, the counsel had conceded that a sum of rupees ten lakhs would be deposited in the name of the complainant in the form of FDR and handed over to her. However, no liberty was granted to the complainant to withdraw the said amount till the decision of court of competent jurisdiction in regard to permanent alimony.

It was also conceded by the counsel that the articles given in dowry shall be returned. In the mean time, the applicant also conceded that his spouse shall receive a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards sustenance till the court of competent jurisdiction decides the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to her.

At present, an application has been moved stating that the said conditions are too stringent, the same may be verified.

It is often (sic) seen that at the time of application, the applicant concedes to a whole lot of concessions and amenities to be provided to the estranged spouse pending settlement of the dispute but it is subsequently that the orders are varied and the concessions given are withdrawn.

Even though, in the present case, Ld. Counsel for the applicant states that he does not challenge the FDR or Rs. 20,000/- as sustenance amount. He has, however, challenged that the articles given in dowry shall not be as per the demands of the complainant. However, the same can be determined during the course of litigation where the rights of the parties are to be determined".

4. The aforesaid orders have been assailed in the present petition. The main ground and the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners was that when the petitioners were not present before the learned ASJ, their counsel could not make any statement with regard to the petitioners agreeing to create FDR in the name of the complainant. In other words, the submission was that no such statement was made by the learned counsel for and on behalf of the petitioners that the latter had agreed to create FDR in the name of the complainant. The learned ASJ in the order passed in the modification application of the petitioners on 11.5.2012, has categorically stated that at the time of arguments, the petitioners' counsel had conceded that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs would be deposited in the name of the complainant in the form of FDR and the same shall be handed over to her. He had also recorded in the said order that no liberty was given to the complainant to withdraw the said amount till the decision of the case by court of competent jurisdiction with regard to the permanent alimony.

With regard to the petitioners' counsel conceding for return of dowry articles, it has been recorded by the learned ASJ that the same can be determined during the course of litigation where the rights of the parties are to be determined. It is unacceptable that what is now stated by the learned counsel Sh. K. Mukesh is correct and what is recorded by the Ld. ASJ in his two orders is not factually correct. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the ASJ. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

MAY 28, 2012/akb