Sudhir Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 4513 Del

I- 16
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: 29th June, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. No. 2538/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.9045-46/2015
      SUDHIR KUMAR                                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr. A.K. Tyagi, Advocate

                         versus

      THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT ) DELHI & ORS. ....Respondents
                    Through:   Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional
                              Public Prosecutor for State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner's revision petition against trial court's order directing petitioner to pay maintenance of `3,000/- per month to respondent No.2- wife and `4,000/- to respondent No.3-child stands dismissed vide impugned order of 10th September, 2014, as petitioner had refused to deposit the aforesaid interim maintenance amount.

The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the statutory remedy of revision petition cannot be denied to petitioner without hearing on merits and reliance upon decisions in Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & ors. 2009 V AD (Delhi) 497 and Kukku Ram Vs. Ram Beti 184 (2011) DLT 168 by Revisional Court is misplaced.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had

Crl.M.C.No.2538/2015 Page 1 sought to assail the trial court's order of 28 th January, 2014 on merits but this Court is of the considered opinion that without getting the aforesaid trial court's order decided in revision petition, petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and decisions in Rajeev Preenja & Kukku Ram (Supra), I find that ratio of the afore- noted decisions squarely applies to the instant case. No decision to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for petitioner. Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. Pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE

JUNE 29, 2015
r




Crl.M.C.No.2538/2015                                                  Page 2