Mohdanas v. Ms Shakila

1. This is a petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein challenge has been made to order dated 05.06.2013 passed b~' learned Judge, Family Courts, Saket.

2. The respondent/wife herein has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance which is pending disposal before the Family Courts, Saket.. Along with said petition, she had moved a separate application for grant of interim maintenance to her till the disposal of main petition. The respondent had stated that she was married to petitioner 45 ~ ~ 2013:DHC:8485 C[2]) years ago. Their marriage was duly consummated and nine children have born from their wedlock. Two daughters, namely, Shahida and Nasreen are unmarried daughters. The respondent has made allegations of beatings given to her by the petitioner/husband various times and has alleged that after giving merciless beatings to her she was turned out from the matrimonial home along with two unmarried daughters. She has alleged that she sent her sons to make the petitioner understand but all in vain. She has also alleged that the petitioner/husband is not paying any maintenance to her and she has no source of income whereas petitioner/husband is running a textile mill in the name of Standard Handloom Store and Standard Cold Storage at Distt. Kanshiram Nagar, U.P. He is also having rental income of ~ 2,50,000/- per month. She has claimed ~ 70,000/- per month as maintenance.

3. The petitioner !husband i.e., the respondent before the learned trial court has filed a reply stating therein that the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction as the matrimonial home ofthe parties is at U.P. The allegations ofphysical beatings and torture made against him have been denied. He has alleged that respondent has filed the petition in collusion with her sons in order to harass the petitioner. Petitioner has alleged that he is ready to keep respondent and there is no material on record to show that he has neglected the respondent/wife and has prayed that application be rejected.

4. Before the Family court, both the parties had filed their respective affidavits as to their proof of income. The respondent/wife stated that she is unemployed and has no source of income. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated his income as~ 42,000/- per month and also stated that he is suffering from illness and most of his income goes in the medical treatment. After:-,l -.•- ~ hearing the counsel for the parties, ld.Judge, Family Court observed that the petitioner did not file any income tax returns for the last 3 years and ha[5] suppressed his true income. Ld. Judge also noted that petitioner bas admitted that he is doing partnership business with some other person and assessed his income as <60,000/- per month and granted <12,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of filing application i.e. 09.04.2012 till disposal ofthe petition.

5. Aggrieved with the same the present petition is filed.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner/husband is that when he is ready to keep the respondent/wife, the learned Judge ought not have granted the interim maintenance to her. It is further contended that petition has been filed by the respondent/wife at the behest of her sons in order to harass the husband. It is submitted that the parties got married about 45 years ago and they have 9 children and petitioner has denied allegations of beating etc. as is alleged by the respondent/wife. It is contended that in these circumstances, the respondent is not entitled for interim maintenance. It is further submitted that respondent/wife is still living at U.P. and the Delhi courts have no jurisdiction to hear the present case. Nothing has been argued about the quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife.

7. I have considered the submissions made.

8. Perusal of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that there are allegations that the petitioner/husband has tortured and harassed her and turned her out of matrimonial home. The respondent/wife has also alleged that she has been thrown out of matrimonial home without any cause. She has also alleged that husband has neglected and refused to maintain her. The stand of petitioner/husband is that the respondent/wife has withdrawn without any justifiable cause and he is still willing to keep her. ~ (_j) The Ld. Judge, Family Courts, has examined the contention of parties and has observed that while granting interim maintenance, the merits of the case are not to be considered as the same are subject matter of evidence and · the same shall be considered after recording the evidence of parties. About the jurisdiction, perusal of petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C shows that respondent/wife is residing at Delhi. Even there is affidavit supporting the petition wherein she has given the address of Delhi. The stand of petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife is living at U.P. However, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Whether respondent/wife is residing at U.P. or Delhi is again a subject matter of evidence. Considering the material on record, prima facie, it cannot be said that courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to hear the present case. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, no illegality or irregularity is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference ofthis court in exercise of its revisional power. The revision petition is dismissed.

OCTOBER 08, 2013 srb VEENA BIRBAL, J:-,,·