Delhi High Court
Vikas Nirmal vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 15 May, 2017
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment dated:15th May, 2017
+ CRL.REV.P. 417/2015 & CRL.M.A.9730/2015, 10342/2016
VIKAS NIRMAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.Hasibuddin, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
Counsel for R-2 (appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
I.S.MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned
order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, CBI-III,
Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl.Appeal No.70/2014 and the interim maintenance
order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under
Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as "The D.V. Act") in Complaint Case No.47/04/11
wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) in favour of the respondent No.2
and which has been affirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Court.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was married to the respondent No.2
on 03.11.1995 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi and out of the
wedlock, two daughters, namely Varnika and Vartika were born. It is stated that
in the month of January, 2011 the respondent No.2-wife left the company of the
petitioner-husband and shifted to her parental home with her two children as she
was subjected to domestic violence at her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the
respondent-wife filed an application under Section 23 of The D.V. Act along
with application under Section 12 of The D.V. Act seeking interim maintenance
for herself and her two minor children from the petitioner-husband in the Court
of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi. As per the averments made in
the application, the petitioner is stated to be a man of means, however, he is not
maintaining his wife and two minor children and is reluctant to fulfil his
statutory obligation.
3. Consequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing the
counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents placed on record,
passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 whereby the petitioner-husband
was directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance to the
respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application till the final disposal of
the case.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.05.2012, the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 29 of The D.V. Act bearing Crl. Appeal No.70/2014 before
the learned District & Sessions Judge on 23.12.2014. The learned Sessions
Judge vide its impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2015 dismissed the
aforesaid appeal of the petitioner.
Hence the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw the
present petition with liberty to take all his pleas before the Trial Court. He
further submits that without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties,
the petitioner is paying Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent and if at all
arrears remains to be paid; he would pay the same during the process. He further
submits that directions be given to the Trial Court to dispose of the case within
three months from today.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that
the matter is pending before the Trial Court since 2011 and the petitioner be
directed to clear all the arrears at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date
of institution of the case till today; without prejudice to the rights and contention
of the parties.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is an admitted fact coming on record that the main maintenance petition
is pending before the Trial Court. The determination of the maintenance amount
will be done by the Trial Court after leading of evidence by the respective
parties and on the basis of material documents and income affidavits of the
parties. However, this Court finds no irregularity and illegality in the impugned
order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, CBI-III,
Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl.Appeal No.70/2014.
9. Since the petitioner has volunteered to pay Rs.20,000/- per month without
prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties; the petitioner is directed to
pay Rs.20,000/- per month without prejudice to the rights and contention of the
parties from the date of filing of the maintenance petition and the Court below is
directed to dispose of the maintenance petition after determining the
maintenance for the wife and the two children on the basis of the pleadings as
well as evidence adduced before the Court.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending
application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to
dispose of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent-wife as soon as
possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order.
11. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court. No order as to costs.
12. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on the date already fixed i.e. 7 th
September, 2017.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties, as prayed.
I.S. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
MAY 15, 2017
'r'
