Delhi High Court
Khalid vs Nasreen on 16 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 16th, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 507/2016
KHALID ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Shahid Azad, Mr.Md. Aslam and
Mr.Ashutosh Rana, Advs.
versus
NASREEN ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter shall be referred as Cr.P.C.) against judgment dated
09.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated
17.11.2015 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting interim
maintenance of Rs.16,000/- per month in favour of the respondent
was dismissed.
2. Facts, in brief, are that a petition under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V.
Act) was filed by the respondent/wife against the petitioner/
husband. In the petition, it was alleged that the marriage between
the parties was solemnized on 11.05.2012. In the marriage, father
of the respondent/wife gave all the domestic articles, clothes,
utensils, gold, silver, cash and car. Since marriage, the petitioner/
husband and in-laws started harassing the respondent/wife. The
respondent/wife was harassed and meted out with cruelty for or in
connection with dowry. On 07.02.2013, the respondent/wife was
blessed with a male child at her parental home and at the time of
delivery, nobody from the family of husband came. Thereafter, the
respondent/wife was asked to bring Rs.5 lacs from her parents. On
21.07.2013, the respondent/wife was beaten brutally and with the
help of police and her father, she was taken to hospital. On
22.07.2013, she got lodged an FIR No.317/2013, under Section
307/498-A/506/34 IPC, Police Station Gokal Puri. Since
21.07.2013, the respondent/wife along with her child has been
staying at her parental home. It was mentioned that the respondent
/wife is a housewife and has no movable or immovable property in
her name and has no source of income to maintain herself and her
minor son. It was further mentioned that the petitioner/husband
was getting salary of Rs.54,000/- per month and was leading a
luxurious life.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent/wife had
moved an application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act for the
grant of interim maintenance. The Trial Court vide order dated
17.11.2015 directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month each as interim maintenance to the
respondent/wife and her minor son from the date of filing of the
petition. The petitioner/husband filed an appeal challenging the
order dated 17.11.2015 which was dismissed by the Court of
Session vide judgment dated 09.06.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband.
4. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner were
heard.
5. The main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel for the
petitioner is that the Trial Court has granted interim maintenance in
favour of the respondent/wife during the pendency of the interim
maintenance application against the set principles of law. It is
submitted that even the Court of Session has not appreciated the
fact that the grant of interim maintenance till the pendency of the
application is against the principles of natural justice.
6. Perusal of record shows that the Trial Court had called the
parties to file their respective affidavits of assets, income and
expenditure as per the directions of this Court contained in Puneet
Kaur v. Inderjeet Sahni 2011 (183) DLT 403. In compliance,
thereof, the parties filed their affidavits. As per the affidavit filed
by the petitioner/husband, his income was Rs.42,600/- per month.
On the other hand, it was alleged by the respondent/wife that she
was having no source of income and she had prayed for the grant
of maintenance to maintain herself and her minor son. After going
through the affidavits of income, expenditure and assets of the
parties, the Trial Court directed the petitioner/husband to pay a
sum of Rs.8,000/- each to the respondent/wife and her minor son.
7. The contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the
Trial Court is bad in law as the Court has granted interim
maintenance despite the pendency of application for the grant of
interim maintenance. There is no force in this contention of the
petitioner for the reasons that the maintenance granted is interim
only and not the final one which would be subject to adjustment at
the time of final decision on the application.
8. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the
present petition is dismissed.
9. Applications Crl.M.A. 11875-11876/2016 are also disposed
of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
dd
