Delhi High Court
Pradeep Suri vs Simmi Suri & Ors. on 20 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th August, 2014
+ CRL. M.C. 1762/2012
PRADEEP SURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Massod Hussain with Mr.
Saurabh Malhotra, Advocates.
versus
SIMMI SURI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. O. P. Wadhwa, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No.6167/2012
This is an application for condonation of delay in refiling the
present petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the
petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No.1762/2012
1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against order
dated 06.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02
(West), Delhi whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner
was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondents filed a
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. An
application for interim maintenance was also filed on behalf of the
respondents. Vide order dated 27.5.2011 interim maintenance @
Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of each of the respondents (petitioners
in original petition) was awarded from the date of filing of the petition
i.e. 13.12.2010.
3. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.165/2/2011
against order dated 27.05.2011, which was dismissed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-02 (West), Delhi. The revision petition was
primarily dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited
the amount of maintenance before filing the revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision
petition was dismissed only because the petitioner failed to deposit the
amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court and was not
decided on merits. He further submits that the petitioner is liable to
pay the amount of interim maintenance till the filing of the revision
petition. He also submits that during the pendency of present petition,
he had already paid Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty thousand
only) to respondent No.1.
5. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioner submits
that the petitioner is ready to deposit a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two lakhs only) without prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay interim
maintenance till filing of revision petition, in view of judgment in
'Rajeev Preenja vs. Sarika & Ors.', 159 (2009) DLT 616.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs
fifteen thousand) during the pendency of the present petition.
7. In the instant case interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month
in favour of each of the respondents were awarded from the date of
filing of the petition i.e. 13.12.2010 by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mahila Court (West), Delhi vide order dated 27.05.2011.
The petitioner had challenged the said order by filing a Criminal
Revision Petition No.165/2/2011, which was dismissed vide impugned
order dated 06.02.2012. The revision petition was dismissed primarily
on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of the
amount of interim maintenance in terms of judgment in the case of
Rajeev Preenja case (Supra).
8. Considering in totality the facts of the present case and the
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has
already paid some amount to respondent No.1 during the pendency of
the present petition and the petitioner is ready to deposit a further sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs), it is directed that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-02 (West), Delhi will decide the revision
petition on merits after hearing both the parties subject to the condition
that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
lakhs only) by way of fixed deposit receipt in the name of respondent
No.1 within a period of two weeks without prejudice to the rights of
the petitioner before the Trial Court. Both the parties are directed to
appear before learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (West), Delhi on
01.09.2014.
9. With the aforesaid submissions, the petition stands disposed of.
Crl. M.A. Nos.6165/2012 & 5275/2013
Both the applications are dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
AUGUST 20, 2014
hs
