Delhi High Court
Santosh Malhotra vs Ved Prakash Malhotra on 19 November, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Crl. M.A. NO.3068/2012
IN
Crl. M.C. NO. 2386/2010
+ Date of Decision: 19th November, 2012
# SANTOSH MALHOTRA ....Petitioner
! Through: In person
Versus
$ VED PRAKASH MALHOTRA ...Respondent
Through: Ms. Aarti Mahajan, Adv.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed in a disposed of matter by the applicant-wife
who has been dragging her husband and two sons into different legal
battles for claiming maintenance from them and against whom this
Court had recently on 18th May, 2012 while dismissing one of
her petitions(being Crl. M. C. No.3948/2008) filed by her against her
husband observed as under:-
" 8. ................the petitioner seems to be trying to abuse the
benevolent provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Section is
designed to help the need and not the greedy. It is not meant for
settling the personal scores, but it is experienced that it is often being
misused and the present case is an instance..........The pleas that her
husband(respondent no.1) is getting Rs.10,000/- p.m. as pension and
Rs.15,000/- p.m. from investments is nothing but a bundle of lies.
14..............In the proceedings conducted on 26.3.2012 the offer as
given her son Prem Parkash of 100 Australian Dollars per month as
also of her husband of Rs.5,000/- per month out of the rent and to
continue pay Rs.4500/- per month as before, was outrightly declined
by the petitioner in the subsequent proceedings. This shows the
conduct of the petitioner, who seems to be not only greedy and trying
to settle the scores, but was extremely aggressive also..........."
2. Now the brief facts leading to the filing of the present
application by the petitioner-wife may be noticed. During the
pendency of the proceedings against the respondent-husband under
various sections of The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 initiated by the applicant-wife learned
Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order directing the Protection
Officer to let out the second floor portion of respondent's house in
Kirti Nagar so that there could be some rental income which could be
shared by the petitioner-wife also. Feeling aggrieved by that direction
the respondent filed a revision petition in which he succeeded and the
aforesaid direction of the trial Court was set aside. This time, the
applicant-wife felt aggrieved and she approached this Court for
quashing of the Sessions' Court order by filing a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.(being Crl. M.C. No. 2386/ 2010). That petition
was, however, dismissed on 4th January, 2012 when one of the
submissions made on behalf of the respondent-husband was that the
second floor portion of his house could not be directed to be let out as
whenever his children come to his house they require that portion to
stay there.
3. After the dismissal of the petition of the applicant she moved
the present application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging that the
respondent had deliberately made a false statement that whenever his
children come to Delhi they require some place to stay and except for
the second floor, which was sought to be let out, there was no other
place to accommodate them. However, thereafter the respondent went
ahead and rented the second floor to some tenant and, therefore, he
should be proceeded against under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
4. The respondent did not file any reply to this application and
during the course of hearing it was admitted by his counsel that
second floor was actually let out for some time but that fact will not
justify initiation of any proceedings against him under Section 340
Cr.P.C.
5. The applicant, who has been fighting her battle in person, had
submitted that her husband had misled this Court into believing that
there was no justification for letting out the second floor of his house
to generate rental income by claiming that his children, who were
settled outside Delhi, require that portion as and when they come to
stay with him while it was not so and that was evident from the fact
that immediately after the dismissal of her petition on 4th January,
2012 he had let out the second floor. She further contended that this
conduct of the respondent-husband very well attracts the provisions
of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
6. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire
aspect of the matter I have come to the conclusion that there is no
merit in this application and the same is liable to be dismissed. The
respondent-husband was challenging the order of the trial Court
whereby second floor of his house was directed to be let out and he
succeeded in the revisional Court and then before this Court also.
There was no order of any Court prohibiting him from letting out any
part of his property and if at all he had let out the second floor of his
property all that the applicant could claim from him was a share in the
rental income, which this Court had noticed in the order dated 18th
May, 2012, noticed already, also that her husband had offered him to
pay her half of the rent of Rs.10,000/- at which rate he had let out the
second floor but she had refused to accept the same and was insisting
upon payment of the entire amount of rent to her and observing that
conduct of hers this Court had rejected her petition.
7. This application is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is
dismissed. It is, however, clarified that as and when the second floor
of the property in question is let out again by the respondent the
applicant would be at liberty to make a prayer to the trial Court for
passing appropriate orders for her share also in the rental income, if
she is entitled to the same in law and the same shall be dealt with in
accordance with law.
P.K. BHASIN,J
November 19, 2012
