Delhi District Court
Yogesh Sharma vs Smt. Kamla Sharma on 17 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CR No.13/2013
Yogesh Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma,
R/o 94, Karawal Nagar, Delhi - 94. .....Revisionist.
Versus
1. Smt. Kamla Sharma,
W/o Late Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma,
R/o 1/7082, Shivaji Park,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032.
2. Smt. Vinita Sharma,
W/o Late Sh. G.K. Sharma,
3. Hira Lal Sharma,
S/o late Sh. G.K. Sharma,
(respondent no.2 & 3)
Both are R/o 1/10102, Street No.3K, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi32. .....Respondents.
: J U D G M E N T :
1. Aggrieved by the order on interim maintenance dated 05.11.2012 passed by Ld. MM/KKD/Delhi in a case bearing No. 406/2011 PS Welcome titled as "Kamla Sharma Vs. Vinita Sharma & Ors." whereby the revisionist Yogesh Sharma (respondent no.3 before Ld. Trial Court) was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/ per month towards the interim maintenance to the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court (respondent no.1 herein) from the Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors. (CR No.13/2013) Page No. 1 of pages 6 date of filing of aforesaid petition till its disposal; the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on 24.05.2013 for setting aside the impugned order. Along with the petition, the petitioner has also preferred an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision petition.
2. Before coming to the main petition, the application for condonation of delay is to be considered first. In the said application, the petitioner is praying for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that the revisionist had gone to Australia in July, 2012 as his daughter and son are getting education there and came to India on 28.04.2013 and immediately contacted with his counsel on 01.05.2013 and came to know about the impugned order dated 05.11.2012. The delay in filing the revision is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the aforesaid reasons.
3. I find that the reasons stated by the petitioner in support of his application are just and reasonable and as such I hereby condone the delay occurred till filing the instant revision petition.
4. Now, let us come to the Revision petition.
5. The petitioner is impugning the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i). Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent no.1 herself mentioned in the petition that her share was used by her late son in purchasing property but Ld. MM has not passed any order against the respondent no.2 & 3, who are using the property of respondent no.1.
(ii). Ld. Trial Court has not considered the fact that the respondent no.1 gave her share of Rs. Seven Lakhs to her son and he assured respondent no.1 for her maintenance and therefore, after his death, the respondent no.2 & 3 are duty bound to given the maintenance to the respondent.
Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors. (CR No.13/2013) Page No. 2 of pages 6
(iii). Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the counsel of the revisionist had given proposal at the time of addressing arguments on behalf of the revisionist and showed willingness to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/ per month as maintenance as per his capacity inspite of the fact that he has other liabilities of his wife and unmarried children.
(iv). Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact of the revisionist, as mentioned in her written statement, and simply without giving any reason passed the order in arbitrary manner against the revisionist and as such the same is liable to set aside.
(v). Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that besides the revisionist there are other legal heirs of the respondent as the respondent no.1 has four daughters and they are also legally bound to maintain the respondent no.1 and therefore, the respondent should be directed to made them as party but Ld. MM directed the revisionist only to give the maintenance to the respondent no.1.
(vi). Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent mislead the Court in respect of income of petitioner as the respondent has not filed any document in regard of business of petitioner and simply stated that the appellant is earning a sum of Rs. One Lakhs from the business but did not disclose from which business.
(vii). Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the respondent no.1 is also getting the widow pension as well as old aged pension inspite of having sufficient means by making false representation.
Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors. (CR No.13/2013) Page No. 3 of pages 6
(viii).Besides above, Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent no.1 has sufficient resources with her to properly maintain herself.
6. Having heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and carefully perusing the entire material placed before me including the ground taken in the petition as well as case laws referred, I have come to the considered opinion that the revision petition as filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits as there is no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. It is well settled that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction.
The provisions contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweet of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 to protect the weaker section like women and children. The object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owns to society in respect of his wife, parent and children so that they are not left beggared and destituted on the scrapheap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence.
In Suresh Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 it has been held, "in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate."
In Santosh Vs. Naresh Pal reported as (1998) 8 SCC 447 it has been held, "in a revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the Revisional Court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors. (CR No.13/2013) Page No. 4 of pages 6 findings............".
Moreover, by way of impugned order, the Trial Court has merely ordered for grant of interim maintenance and the plea and contentions, as raised in the revision petition, is a matter of trial and the same can very well be taken up at the later stage of trial. Further the amount of interim maintenance as fixed by Ld. Trial Court does not seem to be unreasonable for the revisionist, who is bearing the expenses of his children, who are studying abroad i.e. in Austrialia.
Thus, the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of authorities on the efficacy and value of the order passed by the Magistrate while determining maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
7. In view of aforesaid, the revision petition as filed by the revisionist deserves dismissal and same stands dismissed accordingly.
8. TCR alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court for information and for proceeding further in the matter as per law.
9. Revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial court on 02.09.2013.
10. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
th
Court on 17 August, 2013) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors. (CR No.13/2013) Page No. 5 of pages 6
CR No.13/2013
Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors.
17.08.2013 Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, revision petition of the revisionist stands disposed off.
TCR alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court for information and for proceeding further in the matter as per law.
Revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial court on 02.09.2013.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ02 (NE): KKD Delhi 17.08.2013 Yogesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma & Ors. (CR No.13/2013) Page No. 6 of pages 6