Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Dr. Anil Kumar vs Smt. Romi Devi on 24 March, 2008

                                       1

         IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
      ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI

IN RE :                     Criminal Revision No. : 20/2008
                            Date of registration : 25-1-2008
                            Reserved for Order on : 20-3-2008
                            Order Announced on : 24-03-2008



Dr. Anil Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Niwas Gupta
R/o B-90, Old Multistory Building
IIT Bombay Campus, Powai, Mumbai-400076.

                                                     .......Petitioner

         Vs.

Smt. Romi 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

1. Briefly stated the respondent has filed a petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and one Sh.Sunil Kumar Gupta which is pending in the court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, M.M. Rohini, Delhi. The respondent herein is the mother of Contd...

the petitioner and by way of her petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C she has claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 12000/- per month from the petitioner and her brother Sunil Kumar Gupta.

2. According to the petitioner he filed reply to the said petition on 8-2-2007 raising objections about the jurisdiction of the trial court. The case was fixed for arguments on 5-9- 2007 and on the said date the arguments according to the petitioner were concluded and the matter was fixed for orders. The trial court also mentioned in the order that the parties may file their written submissions before the order. The order could not be passed as the trial court was on leave and link magistrate fixed the case for 5-10-2007 for further proceedings instead of fixing it for orders. The trial court on 5-10-2007 again fixed the case for the appearance of the complainant instead of fixing it for order.

3. On 7-12-2007 according to the petitioner trial court marked the presence of the respondent without waiting for the other side and at around 10:15 a.m adjourned the matter Contd...

for arguments on the point of jurisdiction, even though the arguments were already heard and the petitioner had also filed his written arguments. So according to the petitioner, there was no occasion for fixing the matter for arguments and it should have been fixed for order. According to the petitioner, the matter is being unnecessarily delayed.

4. I have heard the arguments and also perused the records of the case. I have also perused the trial court record.

5. First of all the relief claimed by the petitioner seeking directions to the Ld. trial court for pronouncing the judgment on the point of jurisdiction as raised by him in the proceedings pending before the Ld. M.M. cannot be allowed because as per the mandate of section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. the revision does not lie against the interlocutory orders. The orders passed by the Ld. M.M adjourning the matter from time to time are nothing but interlocutory orders against which no revision petition lies. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6. However, a perusal of the trial court record shows Contd...

that the matter has been argued by the parties. Even the written submissions were filed by the petitioner before the trial court, which had afforded opportunity to both the parties. The matter is now again fixed for arguments by the Ld trial court for 26-4-2008.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the arguments on the point of jurisdiction were concluded on 5-9-2007 and the matter was fixed for orders and the parties were afforded opportunity to file their written arguments. But since then the matter is being fixed for appearance and arguments. This is a case between the mother and the sons and in one of its order dated 10-5-2006, Ld. Trial court had allowed the application for early hearing moved by the respondent herein on the ground that she being an old lady and having no source of income. So when such is the position of the case, the Ld. trial court should make all endeavour to expedite the case.

8. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Trial Court is directed to decide the question of jurisdiction Contd...

within a period of one month from the next date of hearing of the case. The revision is disposed of accordingly. Trial court record be sent back alongwith the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. (Announced in the open Court on 24-3-2008) RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:ROHINI:DELHI Contd...

Contd...