Naresh Kumar Singhal & Ors. vs State Of Nct Delhi & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8913 Del

$
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 03, 2015
                         DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 01, 2015

+                    CRL.REV.P. 120/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.3092/15

       NARESH KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS                        ..... Petitioners

                          Through :   Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advocate.

                          versus

       STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR                          ..... Respondents

                          Through :   Mr.Ashok K.Garg, APP.

                                      Mr.A.K.Singh, Advocate for R2.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the

petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated

18.11.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.78/14 by

which order dated 24.04.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila

Court (South) in Complaint Case No.331/1 was modified to the extent that

instead of `1,00,000/- each, the petitioners shall pay in all `80,000/- as

compensation to the respondent; the petitioner No.1 shall pay

maintenance @`5,000/- p.m. instead of `6,000/- p.m. from the date of

filing of the petition before the Trial Court. The Revision Petition is

contested by the respondent.

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

examined the file. On perusal of the file, it reveals that the petition under

Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act

(hereinafter referred to as D.V.Act) was filed by the respondent against

the petitioners which was duly contested by them. By an order dated

24.04.2014 the respondent was granted various reliefs including

compensation @`1,00,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners and

`6,000/- p.m. as maintenance for the respondent and her child from the

date of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners

preferred the appeal which was disposed of by an order dated 18.11.2014.

Review Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2015.

3. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation and maintenance awarded by the Courts below. They are

also aggrieved whereby petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have been ordered to share

the compensation. The impugned order dated 18.11.2014 records that the

petitioners had no grievance so far as relief protection under Section 18

and order under Section 19 of DV Act were granted by the Trial Court.

The appellate court categorically observed that there were no allegations

of domestic violence against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the evidence of the

respondent as CW-1. She had levelled allegations of domestic violence

only against her husband and mother-in-law. The appellate court further

observed that the Trial Court did not analyze the testimony of CW-1

(Chanchal-the respondent) carefully. Apparently, there were no

allegations of domestic violence against petitioner No.2 and 3 (father-in-

law and brother-in-law of the respondent respectively). The Courts below

had no occasion to direct petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to share the compensation

amount to be paid by petitioner No.1. Order of the learned appellate court

to that extent cannot be sustained and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 cannot be

asked to share the compensation amount. Accordingly, the entire amount

of compensation of `80,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the

respondent.

4. The Trial Court had granted maintenance at the rate of

`6,000/- p.m. to the respondent and her minor child from the date of

passing of the order. The appellate court reduced the quantum to `5,000/-

and stated that it shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition

before the Trial Court. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent had

not filed any appeal/revision petition against the impugned order of Trial

Court to claim arrear of maintenance from the date of filing of the

petition. Hence, it was not permissible for the appellate court to order the

payment of arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition

and not from the date of the impugned order.

5. The appellate court observed that the income of the petitioner

No.1 has not been ascertained by the Trial Court and the amount of

`6,000/- as total maintenance for the respondent and her child was based

only upon presumptions. It noted that earlier petitioner No.1 had claimed

of doing business of computer learning in the name and style of ANTEC

and generating total income of `5,000/- to `6,000/-. It was also noted that

the maintenance amount granted was on the higher side and accordingly it

was modified to `5,000/-. Again, there is no logic in awarding

maintenance at the rate of `5,000/- p.m. when there was no evidence on

record to show if the income of petitioner No.1 was enough to make that

payment. Contrary to that, it has come on record that the respondent got

employment as Anganwari worker and she was getting `4,000/- p.m. as

salary. This amount was not accounted for in the impugned order. The

petitioners have placed on record the copy of judgment dated 17.07.2013

in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby after considering

the income of the parties and other circumstances, the petitioner No.1 was

directed to pay maintenance to the respondent and her child at the rate of

`1,000/- p.m. each from the date of filing of the said petition till

31.12.2012. He was further directed to pay maintenance at the rate of

`1500/- each p.m. w.e.f.1.01.2013. None of the parties has challenged the

said order. Apparently, this order was not taken into consideration by the

courts below to ascertain the income of petitioner No.1.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

fact that respondent is getting `4,000/- p.m. as Anganwari worker even

after passing of the order dated 17.07.2013, the petitioner No.1 cannot be

asked to pay maintenance at the rate of `5,000/- p.m. from the date of

filing of the petition. Of course, responsibility to maintain the child is of

both the parents and petitioner No.1 will have to make contribution

towards it.

7. In the light of the above discussion, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance to be paid by the

petitioner No.1 to the respondent shall be `1,000/- p.m. and `2,000/- p.m.

for herself and the child respectively from the date of order dated

24.04.2014. Any other amount received by the respondent in any other

proceedings shall be adjusted towards this amount.

8. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. Trial Court record be

sent back along with the copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE DECEMBER 01, 2015 sa