Delhi District Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Vineeta on 19 December, 2016
Criminal Revision No.278/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 278/2016
Under Section : 12 of The Protection of Women From
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ex. No. : 74/2014
Police Station : Harsh Vihar
Unique I.D. No. : 459782016
In the matter of :-
PRADEEP KUMAR
S/o. Sh. Sher Singh,
R/o. H.No.15/29, Vasundhara
(near Vasundhara hospital),
Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P.
..............Revisionist
VERSUS
VINEETA
D/o. Sh. Jai Pal Singh,
R/o. H.No.B-1/214, 25 Feet Road,
Lal Mandir Marg, Harsh Vihar, Delhi.
.................Respondent
Date of Institution : 17.12.2016
Date of receiving the case in this court : 19.12.2016
Date of reserving order : 19.12.2016
Date of pronouncement : 19.12.2016
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This is revision petition directed against the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Ms. Babita Punia, ld. MM in Execution petition titled as Vineeta & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar, bearing Ex. No.74/14, PS Harsh Vihar. Vide impugned order, objections taken by revisionist were dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent filed application before the trial court for execution of Page 1 of 3 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.278/2016 maintenance order passed in her favour. From the revision petition and the copy of impugned order itself, it is revealed that the revisionist herein had filed an objection in the execution proceedings.
3. Ld. counsel for revisionist submitted that in another appeal preferred by revisionist before this court itself, direction was given for conducting DNA test of the children and revisionist. However, the report given by FSL is ambiguous and blood sample of mother/respondent was wrongly taken for the purpose of this examination.
4. In the petition, revisionist has also claimed that respondent is well educated and is working, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. Petitioner has pleaded about power of revisionist court, etc. in the petition, which are not relevant for the decision in the case. Petitioner has sought to set aside the impugned order, without mentioning the grounds or the illegality in the impugned order.
5. I have perused the impugned order and from the impugned order, it is revealed that the revisionist objected to execution of maintenance order on the grounds that revisionist is well qualified and working as teacher; she is living in adultery and both children are illegitimate. The trial court mentioned in the impugned order that in pursuance of the directions given by this court in another appeal preferred by revisionist, DNA test for determining the paternity of the children was conducted by FSL Rohini and according to FSL report, revisionist herein is biological father of children namely Ritika and Mayank Kumar. From the same impugned order, it is also found that revisionist had challenged the interim order for maintenance in the past, but did not succeed therein.
6. This interim order was passed on 06.02.2009, which has attained finality and I do not find any ground for the revisionist to raise objection for execution of that order at this stage. Revisionist cannot assail the legality Page 2 of 3 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.278/2016 of order thereby fixing the maintenance, under the garb of objections to execution of such order. The contention of ld. counsel that FSL report is ambiguous, cannot be sustained, as the report is very specific to tell that revisionist is the biological father of both children.
7. I also do not find any merit in the contention of counsel that there was no need to take blood sample of mother/respondent, because it was necessary to be done in order to ascertain the truth. Moreover, paternity of revisionist in respect of both children is duly established and such contentions raised on behalf of revisionist are apparently made without any relevance. It is well apparent to me that revisionist is not interested in making payment of maintenance and is more interested in delay of the proceedings.
8. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which is totally a justified order in view of conduct of revisionist and hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court to be placed in the case file of execution petition bearing no.74/16 filed under Domestic Violence Act with title as Vineeta & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar, PS Harsh Vihar.
File of revision be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 19.12.2016 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) (This order contains 3 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 3 of 3 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi