Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Hiranmay Kar @ Babu vs Ms. Nivedita Kar on 2 June, 2015

                                           1

IN   THE   COURT   OF   SHRI   RAJNEESH   KUMAR   GUPTA, 
SPECIAL   JUDGE   CBI­02   (P.C.   ACT),   DISTT.   NORTH   WEST, 
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. 
Crl. (A) No. 11/15
Unique Case I.D. No. 024004R0107552015
Hiranmay Kar @ Babu 
S/o Shri Ravinder Nath Kar
R/o I­2/30, Ground Floor, Sector­16
Rohini, Delhi. 
                                                    ...     Appellant

      Versus 

Ms. Nivedita Kar
D/o Shri Bijoy Samanta
R/o Plot No. 7­8, 3rd floor
Pocket­18, Sector­24
Rohini
Delhi.
                                                            ...     Respondent
Date of Institution          :  23.03.2015
Date or arguments            :  27.05.2015
Date of orders               :  02.06.2015

Judgment

This is an appeal against the order dated 24.2.15 passed by the trial court in CC No. 613/4/15 PS Begumpur, whereby the appellant has been directed to make the payment as interim relief of amount of Rs. 20,000/­ p.m. for the maintenance of the petitioner and minor child till the disposal of the interim application.

2. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the appellant and Ld. CA No. 11/15 P­1/4 2 Counsel for the respondent and perused the file.

Perusal of the file shows the complainant (respondent herein) filed an application U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter be referred as 'DV Act')against the respondent (appellant herein).

In the application, it has been alleged that the complainant has married with the respondent in the year 1998. Out of this wedlock, child namely Ayush was born on 16.6.2005. The complainant has been mentally and physically harassed by the respondent.

On the other hand, the respondent has alleged that the marriage between the parties stands dissolved vide order dt. 1.3.14. The complainant has made false allegations against the respondent in the application. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the application.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is against the facts and law. The respondent has not filed the detailed affidavit of income and assets which is required under law. The respondent has been working with KIIT University as Accounts Head, HR Head and has been drawing a handsome salary. She is maintaining bank accounts in different banks. The respondent is a M.Com Graduate and is living a comfortable life with all means and luxuries. The trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant is paying the loan installments of the house and is also paying the rent. The trial court has CA No. 11/15 P­2/4 3 passed the impugned order without applying the judicial mind and is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and has been passed after considering the material on record. The order dt. 1.3.14 has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The appeal is without any merit and it be dismissed.

4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 20,000/­ per month for the maintenance of the petitioner and their child till the disposal of the interim maintenance application. The child is a school going child. As per the documents, the school expenses of the child is about Rs. 10,000/­ per month. More expenses are also required to lookafter and for maintenance of the child. There is no document on record to show that presently the respondent is working with KIIT University. The object of providing maintenance is to prevent the vagrancy of women and children in distress.

5. Keeping in view the above discussions and the fact that the impugned order is only a temporarily financial relief and has been given till the disposal of the interim maintenance application. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and it is upheld. However, the trial court to decide the interim maintenance application expeditiously after considering the material on record. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to an opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the CA No. 11/15 P­3/4 4 appeal is disposed off.

Trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court along with the attested copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta) today i.e. on 02.06.15 Special Judge CBI­02 (PC Act) (North West) , Rohini Courts, Delhi. 

CA No. 11/15                                                                       P­4/4