Full Text
Translation output
f?" HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1353/2016
DINESH KATHURIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Adv. with petitioner in person.
CRL.M.C. 1353/2016
DINESH KATHURIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Adv. with petitioner in person.
VERSUS
MUKTAMANI Respondent
Through: Mr. Sagar Dhama & Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advs. with respondent in person.
Through: Mr. Sagar Dhama & Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advs. with respondent in person.
CRL.M.C. 3458/2016 & CRL.M.A. 14619/2016
MUKTA MANI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sagar Dhama & Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advs. with petitioner in person.
MUKTA MANI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sagar Dhama & Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advs. with petitioner in person.
VERSUS
DINESH KATHURIA & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Adv. with R-1 in person.
Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Adv. with R-1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
19.09.2018 Both these petitions arise out of a case (CC No. 653/1/2012) which was instituted by Mukta Mani (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 3458/2016) against otherpetitioner, Dinesh Kathuria (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1353/2016) and
19.09.2018 Both these petitions arise out of a case (CC No. 653/1/2012) which was instituted by Mukta Mani (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 3458/2016) against otherpetitioner, Dinesh Kathuria (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1353/2016) and
CRL.M.C. 1353/2016 page I of3
2018:DHC:8261 w his relatives invoking Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 seeking .various reliefs. The parties are concededly married to each other and have a child bom out of the said wedlock, the child presently being in the care and custody of the petitioner Mukta Mani
(the wife).
On the application of the wife in the aforesaid proceedings, after securing reply and insisting on disclosures, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 10.12.2014 had granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.
20,000/- per month - composite for the wife and child - from the date of filing of the petition - directing Dinesh Kathuria (the husband) to pay the same.
Both the parties were aggrieved by the said order. They took the matter to the appellate court by criminal appeal nos. 68/2/15 and 97/2/15, which were dismissed by order dated 23.02.2016. It is noted that in absence of any concrete proof to show income higher than the one assumed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, the court of sessions in appeal was not inclined to grant any enhanced maintenance allowance to the wife or the child. On the other hand, the husband having failed to comply with the interim directions to pay the arrears, his appeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said result of both the appeals, both the parties came up to this court by the present petitions invoking the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
After some hearing, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that they are under instructions to withdraw the present petitions, the parties reserving their respective rightto agitate their contentions at the stageof
2018:DHC:8261 w his relatives invoking Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 seeking .various reliefs. The parties are concededly married to each other and have a child bom out of the said wedlock, the child presently being in the care and custody of the petitioner Mukta Mani
(the wife).
On the application of the wife in the aforesaid proceedings, after securing reply and insisting on disclosures, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 10.12.2014 had granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.
20,000/- per month - composite for the wife and child - from the date of filing of the petition - directing Dinesh Kathuria (the husband) to pay the same.
Both the parties were aggrieved by the said order. They took the matter to the appellate court by criminal appeal nos. 68/2/15 and 97/2/15, which were dismissed by order dated 23.02.2016. It is noted that in absence of any concrete proof to show income higher than the one assumed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, the court of sessions in appeal was not inclined to grant any enhanced maintenance allowance to the wife or the child. On the other hand, the husband having failed to comply with the interim directions to pay the arrears, his appeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said result of both the appeals, both the parties came up to this court by the present petitions invoking the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
After some hearing, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that they are under instructions to withdraw the present petitions, the parties reserving their respective rightto agitate their contentions at the stageof
CRLMC. J353/2016 page 2 of3 rf final adjudication on the claim of the wife and the child for maintenance allowance to be fixed by leading evidence during the inquiry which is already underway.
The grievance of the wife that the husband has not been making the payment in terms of interim order diligently and scrupulously is noted for record. It has also however, been stated that execution application is already before the Metropolitan Magistrate pending consideration and necessary orders. The husband, through counsel, however, to show his bona fide, undertakes that he shall pay the requisite amount including the arrears arising out of suchorderwithout prejudice to his contentions and defences.
Binding the husband with the undertaking to abide by the order, though without prejudice to his contentions and subject to adjustment, if required, both the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
The trial court record will be returned forthwith.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 nk
The grievance of the wife that the husband has not been making the payment in terms of interim order diligently and scrupulously is noted for record. It has also however, been stated that execution application is already before the Metropolitan Magistrate pending consideration and necessary orders. The husband, through counsel, however, to show his bona fide, undertakes that he shall pay the requisite amount including the arrears arising out of suchorderwithout prejudice to his contentions and defences.
Binding the husband with the undertaking to abide by the order, though without prejudice to his contentions and subject to adjustment, if required, both the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
The trial court record will be returned forthwith.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 nk
CRL.M.C. 1353/2016 page 3 of3
JUDGMENT