Full Text
CRL.REV.P. 329/2011
.* SURJEET SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharnna, Adv
Through: None.
27.07.2011 r Crl.M.A.8625/2011 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
Crl.M.A.8624/2011 (condonation)
For the reasons explained, delay of 116 days stands condoned.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
ORDER
1. The present revision petition is against the impugned order dated 06.12.2010 passed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. whereby the respondent has been awarded maintenance to the tune of ? 2,500/- per month to be given by the petitioner from the date of filing of the application till the decision of the case or till the respondent is legally entitled to receive the same.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no arrear is CrI.Rev. p. No.329/2011 2011:DHC:1983[8] \ "V pending and petitioner is regularly paying the maintenance to respondent through court 3- In the instant petition, the petitioner has annexed Annexure A (colly) and Annexure C from page Nos.l[4] to 17 and at page Nos.22 & 23 respectively. Learned counsel for petitioner in all fairness concedes that these annexures were not before the Court below, therefore, there were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to Section 125 (4) and 125 (5) of Cr. P. C. which reads as under:-
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to, live with her, husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. CrI.Rev. P. No.329/2011 t /
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits tinat since the respondent is in adultery therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C.
5. Further submits that, the impugned order dated 06.12.2010 has been passed in the absence of the aforesaid annexures, which are very necessary to adjudicate the same.
6. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner.
7. The impugned order dated 06.12.2010 is set aside with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amount of f 2,500/- per m.onth till the disposal of the petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Further, I direct the concerned court to take all the annexures into consideration and thereafter decide the matter afresh and pass the appropriate order as per law.
8. Criminal Revision Petition No.329/2011 is disposed of in above terms and conditions.
9. Dasti. V SURESH KAITJ JULY 27, 2011 Mk CrI.Rev. P. No.329/2011 TT) u (r. r ' y'' ^, P $-27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 329/2011 SURJEET SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 26.07.2013 Crl. M.A. 20031/2011
1. Vide the instant application, applicant / respondent seeks to taice action against the petitioner, who made statement before this court that no arrear is pending and he has been regularly paying the maintenance to the respondent / applicant through the court.
2. In my considered view, it is not expedient to take any action on this apphcation for the simple reason that the matter is pending before Id. Trial court and Id. Judge will look into the issue whether the petitioner has paid the entire amount as per the order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Id. Trial Court and order dated 27.07.2011 passed by this court. If any amount is due. Id. Trial courtshall proceed with the matter as per law.
3. In view of the above, application is dismissed.
4. Before parting with the instant application, it is important to note that the interim order of maintenance dated 06.12.2010 passed by Id. Trial Court has been set aside by this court vide order dated 27.07.2011 with direction that the Id. Trial Court shall look into the Annexures, filed before this court by the petitioner, which were not before it, at the time of passing the order dated 06.12.2010.
5. With the consent of the parties, this court further directed that petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month till the trial court pass a fresh order.
6. The aforesaid direction issued by this court was necessary for the reason that applicant / respondent is the wedded wife of the petitioner. She has no other means to survive. The petitioner has deserted her and she is staying with her brother, who also has no source of incometo feed her. This court could not leave her to starve.
7. During the pendency of the instant application, it is brought to the notice of this court that a complaint has been lodged before the Police Station - Tilak Nagar to take action against a person, who has defamed the respondent / applicant by sending obscene photographs. To this effect, PS- Tilak Nagar has registered a case FIR NO. 284/2011 on 25.08.2011 under Section 292/509 IPC.
8. It is important to note, during the pendency of the aforesaid application. Inspector Sudhir Ranga of PS-Tilak Nagar sent the photographs to FSL Rohini and CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road. The said officer has received the report thereon, as is mentioned in the order dated 16.08.2012 of this court. Since the photographs are the subject matter of the FIR mentioned above, therefore, trial court is directed to hear both the parties and pass a fresh order.
9. Needless to state that the trial court will not be influenced by any of the observations made by this courtwhile passingthe fresh order.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the court concerned on the date fixed.
11. TCR be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order to the court concerned.
SURESH KAIT, J > JULY 26, 2013 Jg