Delhi High Court
Sudhir Karir vs Virender Kumar Karir & Anr on 23 February, 2018
#20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2018
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 45/2018, CM 1078/2018, CM 1099/2018 &
CM 7100/2018
SK ..... Appellant
versus
V K K & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Khusbir Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
belatedly impugns an order dated 04.03.2017, passed by the learned Family
Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in a maintenance petition under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.') bearing CC No.344/16, titled as 'V K K & Another vs. S K K'. At
the very outset, it is pertinent to observe that the present appeal has been
instituted after a delay of 312 days from the date of rendering of the
impugned order.
2. The facts briefly encapsulated are that the respondents are the elderly
parents of the appellant, who on his own admission has a net salary of
Rs.21,413/- per month.
3. Owing to the apathy of the appellant, the parents were constrained to
move a maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., along with an
application for interim maintenance, which was pending adjudication before
the learned Family Court since 05.07.2016.
4. It is an admitted position that prior to the directions contained in the
impugned order dated 04.03.2017, the learned Family Court had not
awarded any ad-interim maintenance to the parents.
5. In this view of the matter, the learned Family Court, vide the
impugned order, directed the appellant to pay Rs.80,000/- to his parents in
the following manner:-
"......Out of the said amount, the respondent is directed
to deposit Rs.40,000/- within 1½ month in the bank
account of the petitioner No.1 and remaining amount of
Rs.40,000/- 1½ month thereafter and will produce the
deposit receipt in this respect."
6. The application for interim maintenance is still pending adjudication
before the learned Family Courts.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that in
compliance with the impugned order dated 04.03.2017, the appellant has
paid Rs.20,000/- to his parents. A perusal of the order dated 12.10.2017
passed by the learned Family Courts reflects that the appellant had
undertaken to deposit the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- in two monthly
installments starting from November, 2017, which undertaking he has
clearly violated.
8. Without commenting further on the deplorable manner in which the
appellant has conducted himself in relation to his aged parents, we opine
that the present appeal is completely bereft of any merit.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications
also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018/dn
