Delhi District Court
Sh. Dinesh Kumar vs Smt. Rakhi on 23 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CR No.15/2014
Sh. Dinesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Khem Chand,
R/o H. No.4598/13, Jai Mata Market,
Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035. .....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Smt. Rakhi, W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh
2. Ms. Jigyasa, D/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar,
Minor through respondent no.2
being mother/natural guardian.
Both R/o H. No.4/A, Shiv Mandir Marg, Chauhan Gali No.1, Maujpur, Delhi - 110053. .....Respondents.
Date of filing of appeal : 01.07.2014.
Date of arguments. : 21.08.2014.
Date of judgment. : 23.08.2014.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. Aggrieved by the order on interim maintenance dated 13.09.2013 passed by Ld. MM/KKD/Delhi in a case bearing CC No.772/2012 PS Jafrabad titled as "Smt. Rakhi & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar" whereby the revisionist Dinesh Kumar (respondent before Ld. Trial Court) was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,200/ per month (i.e. Rs.2,000/ for respondent no.1 and Rs.1,200/ for respondent no.2) towards the interim maintenance to the Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Rakhi & Anr. (CR No.15/2014) Page No. 1 of pages 4 petitioners before Ld. Trial Court (respondent no.1 & 2 herein) from the date of filing of aforesaid petition and it was also directed that the arrears should be cleared withing six months; the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on 01.07.2014 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. The notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and accordingly respondents put their appearance through counsel.
3. Before coming to the main petition, the application for condonation of delay is to be considered first. For the reason explained in the application and the fact that the appellant could not get the proper legal assistance being a very poor person due to which he could not arrange the counsel earlier, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
4. Now, let us come to the Revision petition.
5. I have heard both the parties in details.
6. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and carefully perusing the entire material placed on record particularly, the impugned order, contents of the revision petition specially the grounds taken therein and also the reply filed on behalf of respondents to the revision 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 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Rakhi & Anr. (CR No.15/2014) Page No. 2 of pages 4 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 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 in view of the fact that same has been fixed by Ld. Trial Court by presuming the income of Rs.7,500/ per month.
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 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Rakhi & Anr. (CR No.15/2014) Page No. 3 of pages 4 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. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/ Successor Court for information.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court for further proceeding in the case as per law on 09.09.2014.
10. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
Court on 23 August, 2014) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East,
rd
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Rakhi & Anr. (CR No.15/2014) Page No. 4 of pages 4