Delhi District Court
Dr. Anil Kumar vs Smt. Rami Devi on 10 April, 2007
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 19/07 dated 27/01/2007
Date of Decision: 10.04.2007
Dr. Anil Kumar,
S/o late Sh. Ram Niwas Gupta,
R/o- B-80, Old Multistory Building ,
IIT Bombay Campus,
Powai Mumbai 400076
................... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rami Devi,
W/o late Shri Ram Niwas Gupta,
R/o C/o Sh. Dhani Ram Gupta,
H.No. G-192, Pushkar Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
.................. Respondent
ORDER
10/04/2007 Present. Counsel for petitioner.
Respondent with counsel Ms. Mamta from Legal Aid Cell.
Arguments advanced.
This revision petition has been preferred against order dated 09.11.2006 passed by learned Metropolitan -2- Magistrate in petition U/s. 125 CrPC titled as Smt. Rami Devi vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Another, without disposing of the application for interim maintenance, but observing in the manner as :
"At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case in the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner is in need of immediate relief for her bare subsistence till the application for interim maintenance is decided as she is a poor and old lady without any source of income, accordingly, at this stage, keeping in view admitted relations between petitioner and respondent which is of mother and sons, I award the immediate relief at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- each per month per respondent ( i.e. Rs. 4,000/- in total) to the petitioner from the date of filing of present petition i.e. 22.03.2006 till the disposal of the application for grant of interim maintenance. Nothing mentioned -3- or expressed herein shall tantamount to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Put up for filing of WS and reply for 08.02.2007. In the meantime, keeping in view the relationship between the petitioner and respondents, they are directed to sit together and make sincere efforts so that compromise can be arrived into. Application of interim maintenance not decided today."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since main petition U/s. 125 CrPC was pending for filing of written statement and also for reply to the application for interim maintenance, but, without obtaining written statement and reply to the application for interim maintenance and without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, the learned Trial Magistrate awarded a sum of Rs. 4000/- in total to Smt. Rami Devi by way of immediate relief, with effect from 22.03.2006 i.e. date of filing of the petition, till the disposal of the application for grant of interim maintenance, and as such, the impugned order -4- dated 09.11.2006 is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Smt. Rami Devi-respondent herein has argued that there is no irregularity or illegality in allowing Rs. 4000/- to Smt. Rami Devi by way of immediate relief when the case was adjourned for written statement and reply to the application for interim maintenance.
There is no dispute that application for interim maintenance is maintainable during pendency of the main petition U/s. 125 CrPC, but the application for interim maintenance is to be disposed of in according with law. For disposal of such an application i.e. for interim maintenance, reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be granted to both the sides. In this case, Trial Court record would reveal that on 26.09.2006 respondent No.2-present petitioner put in appearance through his counsel and the petition was adjourned to 09.11.2006 for filing of written statement and reply. Petition was also adjourned for service upon respondent No.1. It was on 09.11.2006 that respondent No.2 was present through counsel whereas respondent No. 1 was present with his counsel. On that date, written statement and reply to the application was not filed by any of the respondents. Date was -5- requested on behalf of the respondent to file written statement and reply. Accordingly, petition was adjourned to 08.02.2007 for filing of written statement and reply. A short date could be given by learned Trial Magistrate for filing of written statement and reply so as to dispose of the application for interim maintenance on merits. However, the petition was adjourned for a long date for filing of written statement and reply. Application for interim maintenance was not disposed of yet by way of immediate relief a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month was ordered to be paid to Smt. Rami Devi i.e. Rs. 2000/- by each of the respondents. It finds mentioned in the impugned order that both the respondents submitted before the learned Trial Magistrate that they were willing to make reasonable payment. At the same time, both the respondents had sought time to file written statement and reply. It does not find mentioned in the impugned order as to how much amount was offered to be paid by the respondents to their mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2-petitioner was ready to pay Rs. 750/800/- per month only. Sh. Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel representing Smt. Rami Devi submits that he does not remember as to how much amount was offered by respondent -6- No.1 or respondent No.2. The fact remains that without disposing of the application for interim maintenance on merits and providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, the learned Trial Magistrate granted immediate relief. Therefore, it can safely be said that impugned order dated 09.11.06 passed without reasonable opportunity of being heard having been provided to the respondents, suffers from illegality. In view of this, the revision petition filed by respondent No.2-petitioner deserves to be allowed. I order accordingly. As a result, the impugned order dated 09.11.06 is hereby set aside, so far it directs present petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the present respondent. Learned Trial Magistrate to dispose of the application for interim maintenance after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties, at the earlier possible.
Counsel for both the parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Magistrate on 20.04.2007.
Trial court record be returned alongwith copy of this order. File of revision petition be consigned to record room. Announced in open court today on 10th of of April, 2007 [NARINDER KUMAR] ASJ: FTC: Rohini 10.04.2007 -7- -8-