Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2263/2010
Date of Decision: 28th January, 2013 # KAMLA ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Tarun Garg, Advocate
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.) against the order dated 25th February, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge whereby the order dated 22nd October, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case no. 237/2008 for granting interim maintenance @ ` 4000 to her from the date of filing application for interim maintenance was modified by altering the date of payment to the date of service of the respondent-husband in the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2013:DHC:416
ORDER
2. The brief facts of the case were noticed by the learned Magistrate in her order as under:-
3. Accepting the respondent’s income to be ` 12,000 p.m. the learned Magistrate fixed interim maintenance at ` 4000 p.m. to be payable by the respondent-husband from the date of filing of maintenance application. The revisional Court after noticing the fact that the petitioner-wife had given her incorrect address as also of her husband which had at one stage led to the respondent being proceeded against ex parte and subsequently that fact being noticed by the court itself led to the issuance of fresh notice to the respondent ordered payment of interim maintenance from the date of service of fresh notice upon respondent.
4. Though the petitioner had claimed enhancement of the maintenance amount also in this petition but that relief was given up by her counsel on 16-08-2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon one judgment of Allahabad High Court reported as 2006 (1) ALJ 373 submitted that interim maintenance was rightly ordered to be given to the petitioner-wife by the Magistrate from the date of filing of maintenance application. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the revisional Court’s order while maintaining that he shall be contesting the petitioner’s claim regarding his income at the trial of the case.
5. In my view, there is no scope for any interference in the order of the revisional Court since the Magistrate himself had come to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife had not given correct address of her husband and so suo moto ex parte proceedings were recalled and fresh notice was ordered to be sent to him at his correct address as given by the petitioner in her affidavit by way of ex parte evidence. He was then served on 4-5-2009 and from that date interim maintenance was ordered to be paid by the revisional Court though it should have been ordered to be paid from the date of the order dated 22-09-2009 since under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. interim maintenance can be granted either from the date of the order of the Court or from the date of the application. Since the respondent-husband had not felt aggrieved I am not inclined to interfere and change the date of payment of interim maintenance to the date of order of the maintenance passed by the Magistrate.
6. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. P.K.BHASIN,J January 28, 2013