Full Text
Translation output
-.
$rv22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 373/2011
0/o AJAY KUMAR ROHILLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.K.Mishra, Advocate along with petitioner present in person.
$rv22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 373/2011
0/o AJAY KUMAR ROHILLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.K.Mishra, Advocate along with petitioner present in person.
VERSUS
YUKTI ROHILLA & ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through : Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 along with respondent No.1 present in person.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State/Respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
25.08.2011 Vide this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated
12.10.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by which the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.S,OOO/- to the respondent No.1/complainant from the date of filing of the application, till the final disposal of the revision petition.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed vide order
2011:DHC:19882 dated 04.05.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for the State submits that at the time of granting of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the petitioner proposed to deposit Rs.2 lakhs each by way of FDR in the name of his two children and that the FDRs shall mature only at the time of age of the maturity of the children. The said proposal was accepted by the respondent No.l/complainant without prejudice to her rights and contentions before the trial court.
Accordingly, the petitioner/accused was directed to deposit
Rs.2 lakhs by way of FDR in a Nationalized Bank in the name of both the children by nominating the complainant/Yukti Rohilla as the guardian; both children and the said FDR shall be delivered to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of the order through ASI Bal Kishan. It is further directed that the interest accrued on the FDR shall be enjoyed by both the children at the time of maturity of the FDR after attaining the age of maturity. This part of the said order has been complied with.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that though the order for maintenance was passed vide order dated
12.10.2010 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.S,OOO/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the complaint; however, till date the petitioner has not even paid a single penny and respondent No.1 is under the burden of maintaining two school going children aged about three and five years.
I note that the petitioner has agreed at the time of getting anticipatory bail to continue to pay a sum of Rs.S,OOO/ as awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
I am of the view that since the petitioner has not fully complied with the order dated 12.10.2010, therefore, the anticipatory bail granted by the learned ASJ vide order dated
20.10.2010 is cancelled.
Accordingly, Revision Petition No. 373/2011 is dismissed.
AUGUST 25, 2011 sa ~ SURESH KAIT, J.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State/Respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
25.08.2011 Vide this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated
12.10.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by which the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.S,OOO/- to the respondent No.1/complainant from the date of filing of the application, till the final disposal of the revision petition.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed vide order
2011:DHC:19882 dated 04.05.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for the State submits that at the time of granting of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the petitioner proposed to deposit Rs.2 lakhs each by way of FDR in the name of his two children and that the FDRs shall mature only at the time of age of the maturity of the children. The said proposal was accepted by the respondent No.l/complainant without prejudice to her rights and contentions before the trial court.
Accordingly, the petitioner/accused was directed to deposit
Rs.2 lakhs by way of FDR in a Nationalized Bank in the name of both the children by nominating the complainant/Yukti Rohilla as the guardian; both children and the said FDR shall be delivered to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of the order through ASI Bal Kishan. It is further directed that the interest accrued on the FDR shall be enjoyed by both the children at the time of maturity of the FDR after attaining the age of maturity. This part of the said order has been complied with.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that though the order for maintenance was passed vide order dated
12.10.2010 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.S,OOO/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the complaint; however, till date the petitioner has not even paid a single penny and respondent No.1 is under the burden of maintaining two school going children aged about three and five years.
I note that the petitioner has agreed at the time of getting anticipatory bail to continue to pay a sum of Rs.S,OOO/ as awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
I am of the view that since the petitioner has not fully complied with the order dated 12.10.2010, therefore, the anticipatory bail granted by the learned ASJ vide order dated
20.10.2010 is cancelled.
Accordingly, Revision Petition No. 373/2011 is dismissed.
AUGUST 25, 2011 sa ~ SURESH KAIT, J.
JUDGMENT