Abdul Khaliq vs Razia Begum
2013 Latest Caselaw 1664 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : 19th March, 2013
                                DECIDED ON : 11th April, 2013

+      CRL.M.C. 745/2012 & CRL.M.A.Nos.2624/2012 & 1698/2013

       ABDUL KHALIQ                                      ..... Petitioner

                          Through :   Mr.S.D.Ansari, Advocate with
                                      Mr.I.Ahmed, Advocate.

                          Versus

       RAZIA BEGUM                                       ..... Respondent

                          Through :   Mr.Ajay M.Lal, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Petitioner-Abdul Khaliq has filed the petition under Article

227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and

order dated 23.01.2012 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge confirming the

order dated 20.12.2010.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. At this juncture, the petitioner is aggrieved of the

quantum of interim maintenance @ `10,000/- granted to the respondent

by the courts below. It reveals that earlier vide order dated 04.04.2009 the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate granted maintenance @ `10,000/- from

the date of filing of the petition to the respondent. In Crl.Rev.No.13/2008,

the order was modified and the petitioner was directed to provide

monetary relief to the respondent @ `6000/- P.M. from the date of filing

of the petition. Crl.Misc Case Nos.4246/2009 and 4375/2009 were filed

before this Court by both the parties assailing the order dated 29.10.2009

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Both the orders were

set aside and the matter was remanded to pass order in accordance with

law by order dated 04.10.2010. However, Abdul Rub and Abdul Khaliq

were directed to pay `5,000/- jointly as maintenance to the respondent

from the date of application till the order on merits was passed. Pursuant

to the remand order, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2010, the

petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ `10,000/- p.m. to the

respondent. The order was challenged in Crl.A.No.03/2011. The learned

Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by order dated 23.01.2012.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. In response,

the respondent claimed to enhance the maintenance amount from

`10,000/- to `40,000/-.

3. The main petition is pending trial before the court below.

Only by interim arrangement, the petitioner has been directed to pay

maintenance @ `10,000/- to the respondent from the date of filing of the

petition. Admittedly, the respondent is residing in a separate portion of

the house in question. It is also not disputed that her mother-in-law and

sister-in-law are taking care of her two children. Their expenses are also

borne by them and other relatives. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate

did not order Abdul Rub to pay any maintenance as he was bearing the

expenses of her children. Income of the petitioner was assessed `50,000/-

from the shop in his possession. There is controversy between the parties

as to who is the owner of the shop in question bearing No.11, Meena

Bazar. This aspect cannot be decided at this stage. However, it is a

matter of record that after the death of respondent's husband in 2006 the

shop in question, which is at present in occupation of the petitioner who is

running his business there, was transferred in her name along with

children. She is not getting any charges from the petitioner for its use and

occupation. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to

reflect income generated from the business being run in the said shop.

Adverse inference is to be drawn against the petitioner for withholding

material documents. The respondent has placed on record list of various

cases instituted by the petitioner dragging her to unending litigation. The

respondent, who is a widow having no independent source of income, is

not expected to meet all her litigation expenses and to maintain herself

with this interim relief.

4. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case the

interim maintenance @ `10,000/- granted to respondent cannot be termed

'excessive' or arbitrary.

5. Contentions raised in the petition need to be dealt on merits

by the Trial Court after getting evidence. The petition lacks merits and is

dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE April 11, 2013 sa