Smt.Manju & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7014 Del

$-22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             DECIDED ON : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2015
+                         CRL.REV.P. 288/2014

      SMT.MANJU & ORS.                                    ..... Petitioners
                          Through :      Mr.Ratnesh Bansal, Advocate.
                          VERSUS
      STATE & ORS.                                        .....Respondents
                          Through :      Mr.Ashok K.Garg, APP for the
                                         State/R-1
                                         Mr.Ajay Gupta, Advocate for R-2.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A.No.7914/2014

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

2. Application is allowed and disposed of.

Crl.Rev.P.288/2014

3. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the

Petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated

30.11.2013 of learned Judge, Family Court, whereby order dated

20.07.2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing R-2 to pay `3,000/- per

month each as interim maintenance to Petitioners No.2 & 3 was modified.

The petition is contested by R-2.

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

examined the file. By an order dated 20.07.2013, R-2 was directed by the

Trial Court to pay `10,000/- in all as interim maintenance to the

Petitioners in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. `4,000/- were

meant for Petitioner No.1 and `3,000/- each were for the maintenance of

both school-going children. Subsequently, on moving of an application

under Section 127 Cr.P.C., by R-2, order dated 20.07.2013 was modified

observing that education expenses of children were being paid by him.

5. Both the parties are at dispute as to in whose custody the

children are. Evidence of the parties is under-way and has yet not been

concluded. All such issues are to be adjudicated only after getting the

evidence of the parties during trial. Impugned order dated 20.07.2013

granting total maintenance of `10,000/- to the Petitioners was passed on

merits after considering rival claims of the parties. The facts incorporated

subsequently in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. regarding

payment of tuition fee of children were in R-2's knowledge that time.

There was no material change of circumstances after the passing of the

order dated 20.07.2013 to modify or review it. The Petitioner No.1 has

placed on record numerous documents showing payment of various

expenses incurred by her to bring up the children. Mere payment of

'tuition fee' by R-2 is not enough to absolve him of his liability to pay all

other basic reasonable incidental expenses. Maintenance under Section

125 Cr.P.C. includes provisions for food, clothing, education as well as

medical treatment as per financial status of the parties.

6. Impugned order withdrawing interim maintenance to the

children @ `3,000/- per month without cogent reasons can't be sustained

and is set aside. R-2 shall continue to pay `10,000/- per month as interim

maintenance to the petitioners till the disposal of the petition before the

Trial Court. He shall also continue to pay tuition fee of the children as was

admittedly being done earlier.

7. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of the case. Trial

Court record along with copy of the order be sent back immediately.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 / tr