Delhi High Court
Hasim Khan vs Anjum Nissa @ Anjum on 13 June, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 359/2015
Date of Decision: June 13th, 2016
HASIM KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Shobit Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
ANJUM NISSA @ ANJUM ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Hitesh Rai, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present revision petition under Sections 401/482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to
as the "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside
the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Court below whereby the
petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance in the sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent.
2. The factual matrix culled out from the record is that a
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent/
wife against the petitioner/husband claiming therein a maintenance
of Rs.20,000/- per month. During the pendency of the main
petition, an application was also filed by the respondent/wife for
the grant of interim maintenance.
3. It was alleged in the petition that marriage between the
parties was solemnized on 26.04.2009. In the marriage, the father
of the respondent/wife spent a huge sum of money. After
marriage, the rukhsat/vidai was to take place after one year but the
attitude of the father of the petitioner/husband changed. He kept
on demanding more and more money and dowry. He demanded
Mahindra Logan Car and Rs.51 lakh in cash and further Rs.11 lakh
at the time of vidai. On 15.03.2010, sisters of the petitioner/
husband threatened the respondent/wife with dire consequences
and they raised the demand of Rs.One Crore 11 lakh. The
signature of the respondent/wife on the Nikahnama was to be taken
in Delhi as she was not present at the time of nikah and she had
apprehension that her signatures might have been forged on the
Nikahnama. Even the jewellery and dowry articles were wrongly
withheld and misappropriated by the petitioner/husband.
Thereafter, a complaint was made in CAW Cell and then the FIR
No.284/2010, under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC, Police Station
Saraswati Vihar was registered against the petitioner/husband and
his family members. Since the respondent/wife was unable to
maintain herself, she claimed the maintenance from the petitioner/
husband.
4. The petitioner/husband filed the written statement to the
maintenance petition and refuted the claim made by the respondent
/wife. On an application filed by the respondent/wife for the grant
of interim maintenance, the Court below vide order dated
30.03.2015 awarded the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to
the respondent/wife.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the passing of the impugned order
dated 30.03.2015, the present revision petition has been preferred
by the petitioner.
6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the respondent/wife is not having any child and
despite that, the Court below awarded the maintenance to the
minor child also. Further it has been argued that the respondent/
wife and her father cheated a sum of Rs.1,09,50,000/- from the
father of the petitioner. It was further argued that the Trial Court
failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/wife never resided
in the company of the petitioner; respondent/wife herself admitted
that the nikahnama was not signed by her; respondent/wife had no
intention to establish matrimonial life and petitioner is a student of
BCA and is dependent on his parents.
7. Perusal of record reveals that the order under challenge has
been passed by the Court below in an application for the grant of
interim maintenance. The Court below granted interim
maintenance in the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent/
wife during the pendency of the main petition. It is apparent that it
has been mentioned in the impugned order that the maintenance
has been awarded to the respondent/wife and her minor son,
whereas it is not in dispute that no such child was ever born out of
the wedlock. It appears that the mentioning of minor son is a
typographical error, but the same cannot be made a basis to discard
the entire order which has been passed on the basis of material
placed before the Court.
8. The contentions made in the present petition with regard to
factual aspect, are matter of trial and no comment on the same can
be made at this stage. The same can be ascertained only after
adducing evidence by the parties. It is also apparent from the
record that the order under challenge is only interim in nature and
not a final decision of the maintenance petition. The amount of
maintenance awarded is always subject to the adjustment which
will depend on the final outcome of the maintenance petition filed
by the respondent/wife.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has
failed to show any error apparent on the face of it or any exceeding of
jurisdiction or failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Courts
below while passing the order under challenge. However, it is made
clear that any payment made in pursuance of the order granting
interim maintenance shall be subject to the adjustment of the
maintenance granted while passing final order by the Trial Court.
10. Before parting with, any observation made above shall not have
any bearing on the merits of the case.
11. Consequently, the present revision petition and the applications,
if any, are hereby dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
JUNE 13, 2016
dd
