Delhi High Court
Resham Devi vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 16 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 16th, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 769/2015
RESHAM DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lalit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.P.Singh, APP.
Mr.Naveen Yadav, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as Cr.P.C.) for
setting aside the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi vide which the
maintenance in favour of the petitioner has been awarded to the
tune of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the order along with
litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.
2. Facts, in brief, are that a petition under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner for the grant of maintenance.
It was mentioned that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent
no.2-Bhoopesh Kumar Yadav was solemnized on 06.05.1999
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of
the said wedlock. It was alleged the petitioner was taunted for not
bringing sufficient dowry by the respondent-husband and his
family members. It was also alleged that the respondent-husband
failed to maintain the petitioner and willfully neglected her. It was
mentioned that the petitioner had studied only upto 5th standard and
was unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent-husband
was allegedly earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the factory
being run by him; earning Rs.15,000/- per month from a nursery
school being run by him and was also having agricultural income
of about Rs.50,000/- per annum.
3. On the other hand, the respondent-husband denied all the
averments made in the maintenance petition.
4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their case.
The Court below after going through the evidence and the material
placed before it, held that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of order and a sum of
Rs.5,500/- towards legal expenses. Feeling aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
5. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties were
heard. I have gone through the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties and the material available on record.
6. Main point of argument advanced by the counsel for the
petitioner is that the income of the respondent no.2-husband has
wrongly been assessed by the Court below as Rs.15,000/-. The
respondent no.2 is earning a handsome amount per month from the
factory and school being run by him apart from having agricultural
income. The other contention of the petitioner is that the Court
below has awarded the amount of maintenance from the date of the
order and not from the date of filing of the application and thus
deprived the petitioner-wife of a considerable amount to maintain
herself. The maintenance petition was filed in the year 2003 and
the order under challenge was passed on 03.08.2015, but facing the
pendency of 12 years, the amount of maintenance for the said
period was declined without any reason.
7. Perusal of record shows that the Court below has gone into
the evidence and the material placed before it at the time of
assessing the income of the petitioner to be Rs.15,000/- per month
and this Court does not find any fault in the same. This Court also
does not find any fault in the grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/-
per month in favour of the petitioner-wife.
8. So far the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the
Court below erred in awarding maintenance from the date of the
order and not from the date of filing of the petition is concerned,
perusal of order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Court below
shows that no finding has been recorded as to why the respondent
no.2-husband has been directed to pay the maintenance amount
from the date of the order. In the entire order, no reasoning has
been given as to why the maintenance awarded has not been
granted from the date of filing of the maintenance petition.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the
order passed by the Court below is upheld. However, the matter is
remanded back to the Court concerned with the direction to give
findings afresh whether the petitioner-wife is entitled for
maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance petition or
not and record reasons for such findings.
10. With the above observations, the present petition is disposed
of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
dd
