Full Text
Translation output
2011:DHC:8999 $-12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1473/2010
NEELAM GUPTA Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person.
CRL.M.C. 1473/2010
NEELAM GUPTA Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
MAHIPAL GUPTA Respondent Represented by: Mr.Arun Batta,Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 'f
18.04.2017 Crl.M.A. No.3776/2016 (for clarification)
Vide order dated 4^'' November, 2009, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate disposed of an application for grant of interim maintenance filed th by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Challenging the order 4 November, 2009, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned
ASJ being Crl. Rev. No.360/2010. When the revision petition came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was noticed that by virtue of the notification of the Delhi High Court bearing No.F.27/2/2010-
Judl./Suptlaw/l 10-113 dated 5^*^ February 2010, the issues relating to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood transferred to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The learned ASJ thus held that it could not decide the revision petition and any interim order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
CRL.M.C. 1473/2010
Ir- could be altered or changed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court.
Challenging the order dated 5'^ April, 2010 of the learned ASJ, the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section
19 of the Family Courts Act being Crl. M.C. No.1473/2010 before this th
Court which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 11 August, 2011 requesting the concerned Family Court to dispose of the revision petition filed bythepetitioner after hearing both the parties on law and facts.
During the course of proceedings before the learned Family Court, the issue arose as to whether the learned Family Court was to decide the issue of interim maintenance afresh or decide the revision petition. Thus the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court on 9*'' April, 2015 directed the petitioner to seek clarification of the order dated ll"^ August, 2011 passed in Crl.M.C.
No.1473/2010 as to whether the Family Court had to adjudicate upon the revision that already stood disposed of on 5'^ April 2010 or fresh revision petition or an application has to be filed.
The crux of the matter is that an order granting interim maintenance was passed in favour of the petitioner aggrieved from which she filed the revision petition. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court can vary and alter the interim maintenance as awarded if it finds any error in the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate being the superior court and also alter the same in view of the subsequent circumstances. It is thus clarified that the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court would decide the issue of interim maintenance both in terms as to whether the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was legal on facts and law and also if any change in circumstances is placedon record.
CRL.M.C, 1473/2010 Page2 of3 '5 The application is disposed ofwith the clarification aforesaid.
Since the proceedings have taken a long time, it is hoped and expected that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court would expedite the matter and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 18, 2017 gm
18.04.2017 Crl.M.A. No.3776/2016 (for clarification)
Vide order dated 4^'' November, 2009, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate disposed of an application for grant of interim maintenance filed th by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Challenging the order 4 November, 2009, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned
ASJ being Crl. Rev. No.360/2010. When the revision petition came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was noticed that by virtue of the notification of the Delhi High Court bearing No.F.27/2/2010-
Judl./Suptlaw/l 10-113 dated 5^*^ February 2010, the issues relating to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood transferred to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The learned ASJ thus held that it could not decide the revision petition and any interim order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
CRL.M.C. 1473/2010
Ir- could be altered or changed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court.
Challenging the order dated 5'^ April, 2010 of the learned ASJ, the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section
19 of the Family Courts Act being Crl. M.C. No.1473/2010 before this th
Court which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 11 August, 2011 requesting the concerned Family Court to dispose of the revision petition filed bythepetitioner after hearing both the parties on law and facts.
During the course of proceedings before the learned Family Court, the issue arose as to whether the learned Family Court was to decide the issue of interim maintenance afresh or decide the revision petition. Thus the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court on 9*'' April, 2015 directed the petitioner to seek clarification of the order dated ll"^ August, 2011 passed in Crl.M.C.
No.1473/2010 as to whether the Family Court had to adjudicate upon the revision that already stood disposed of on 5'^ April 2010 or fresh revision petition or an application has to be filed.
The crux of the matter is that an order granting interim maintenance was passed in favour of the petitioner aggrieved from which she filed the revision petition. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court can vary and alter the interim maintenance as awarded if it finds any error in the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate being the superior court and also alter the same in view of the subsequent circumstances. It is thus clarified that the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court would decide the issue of interim maintenance both in terms as to whether the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was legal on facts and law and also if any change in circumstances is placedon record.
CRL.M.C, 1473/2010 Page2 of3 '5 The application is disposed ofwith the clarification aforesaid.
Since the proceedings have taken a long time, it is hoped and expected that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court would expedite the matter and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 18, 2017 gm
CRL.M.C. 1473/2010 Page 1 of3
JUDGMENT