Delhi District Court
Sardar Pyara Singh vs Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi on 4 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA No.16A/2015
1. Sardar Pyara Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh,
2. Smt. Krishna Devi,
W/o Sh. Sardar Pyara Singh,
Both R/o A116, Uday Vihar,
Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn.,
Nangloi, Delhi - 110041. .....Revisionist.
Versus
Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi,
S/o Sh. Sardar Pyara Singh,
R/o A116, Uday Vihar,
Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn.,
Nangloi, Delhi - 110041. .....Respondent.
Date of filing of petition. : 27.05.2015.
Date of arguments. : 04.09.2015.
Date of judgment. : 04.09.2015.
: J U D G M E N T :
1. Aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 28.04.2015 passed by Ld. MM (West)/Delhi in a case bearing CC No.3/3 PS Nihal Vihar titled as Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Gurbax Singh Birdi, whereby the respondent Gurbax Singh Birdi was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/ per month towards the maintenance to the appellants herein, the appellants herein have preferred the present appeal on 27.05.2015 for setting aside the impugned order in favour of the appellants and passing of any other appropriate order.
Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi (CR No.16A/2015) Page No.1 of pages 6
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the instant petition has been filed against the final order of Ld. MM (West) dated 28.04.2015, wherein the quantum of maintenance was decided by Ld. Trial Court, but inadvertently, the petitioners have filed a revision petition against the said impugned order and the same was also registered as a revision petition. During the course of arguments, it is orally prayed by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the instant petition may be treated as an appeal. The prayer was not opposed and accordingly the same was allowed and Ahlmad was directed to register the petition as an appeal and accordingly, it has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.16A/2015.
3. The appellants are impugning the impugned judgment/order on the following grounds:
(i). The order passed by Ld. Trial court is based on conjectures and surmises and is without the application of judicial mind.
(ii). Ld. Trial Court has totally failed to appreciate the fact that Rs.2,000/ per month is very meager amount for the maintenance of both the revisionists in such very expensive days.
(iii). Ld. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate that the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 have no source of income and totally depend upon their younger son Parminder, who is a taxi driver and earning a meager income, while he has his own liability of his daughter namely Bhawna, while the respondent is a Government job holder, presently posted at SDM Court, Ram Pura, Delhi and drawing more than Rs.30,000/ per month, while the wife of respondent namely Neelam Birdi also working in Anganwari and earning more than Rs. 15,000/ per month and they are living a luxurious life, while the respondent is going far from his Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi (CR No.16A/2015) Page No.2 of pages 6 duties being son of the appellant no.1 & 2 and is not paying even a single penny to the appellant no.1 & 2 for their survival, while being the son of appellant no.1 & 2, he is duty bound to keep his parents happy, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the eyes of law.
(iii). Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the respondent being the elder son of the appellant no.1 & 2 has liability to maintain his old aged ailing parents and therefore, the respondent is liable to pay Rs.10,000/ per month to them i.e. Rs.5,000/ per month each, which would be just proper amount for the maintenance and support of the appellant no.1 & 2.
(iv). If the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court shall not be set aside and the maintenance to the appellant may not be increased, then the appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injuries, which can not be compensated in terms of money.
4. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, who put his appearance before the court alongwith his counsel.
5. I have carefully heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for appellant and Ld. Counsel for respondent. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly the contents of revision petition specially the grounds taken therein and also the records summoned from Trial Court.
6. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for appellants that the impugned order dated 28.04.2015 is not sustainable being incorrect, bad in law and perverse and as such the same is liable to be set aside. The appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 have no source of income and totally depend upon their younger son Parminder, who is a taxi driver and earning a meager income, while Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi (CR No.16A/2015) Page No.3 of pages 6 he has his own liability of his daughter namely Bhawna, while the respondent is a Government job holder, presently posted at SDM Court, Ram Pura, Delhi and drawing more than Rs.30,000/ per month, while the wife of respondent namely Neelam Birdi also working in Anganwari and earning more than Rs.15,000/ per month and they are living a luxurious life. The respondent also keep on harassing them and humiliating them and put pressure upon them to give half share of their property. The respondent does not pay the appellants a single penny though he is duty bound to maintain them being their son and as such respondent may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/ per month to the appellant.
Per contra according to Ld. Counsel for respondent the instant appeal as filed by the appellant is devoid of substance as it has been failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. The respondent is working only with his office as field boy that too on temporary basis and also has the responsibility of two school going children in his family of four to maintain. Further his father has a share in house situated in England as his grandfather did in England leaving behind that house. Further his father has also ancestral property in Jalandhar, Punjab and has also sold a shop situated at Ragarpura, Karol Bagh in the sum of Rs.25 Lakhs. Besides this his both parents get Rs.1,500/ each as old age pension from Government. His uncles, who stay in United Kingdom also helps them financially as and when they come to India. Further his brother Parvinder earns more than Rs.2,00,000/ per months as being running three vehicles on rent.
7. Having heard the rival submissions of both the sides and carefully perusing the entire material placed before me including the ground taken in the petition, I have come to the considered opinion that the appeal as filed by the appellants is devoid of merits as there is no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. Ld. Trial Court has taken into count all aspects of the case Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi (CR No.16A/2015) Page No.4 of pages 6 and has rightly decided the quantum of maintenance on the basis of the material placed before him and same does not require any interference from this Appellate Court. Further admittedly the appellants are getting Rs.3,000/ per moths from the Government as old aged pension and the other son of appellants is also maintaining them. Further appellants have other children also i.e. their another son and daughters and they may also claim maintenance from them. Thus there is no patent error or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. However, in future, in the event of the exigency or material change in the circumstances like the increase of the income of respondent or enhancement of the expenditure qua the livelihood of appellants including the medical expenses etc.; the appellants may approach Ld. Trial Court for enhancement of maintenance by filing appropriate application under the provision of Sec.127 Cr.P.C.
8. In view of aforesaid, the appeal as filed by the appellants deserve dismissal and same stands dismissed accordingly.
9. TCR alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court for information.
10. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in open Court (RAKESH KUMAR1) th on 04 September, 2015) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS) (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi (CR No.16A/2015) Page No.5 of pages 6 CA No.16A/2015 Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi 04.09.2015 Present: Sh. Parminder Singh, son of appellants in person.
Ld. Counsel for appellants.
Ld. Counsel for respondent with respondent. Perusal of record reveals that the instant petition has been filed against the final order of Ld. MM (West) dated 28.04.2015, wherein the quantum of maintenance was decided by Ld. Trial Court but the revision petition has been filed against the said order of Ld. Trial Court.
It is submitted/prayed by Ld. Counsel for appellants that the instant revision petition filed on behalf of Sardar Pyara Singh and Smt. Krishna Devi may be treated as an appeal.
Prayer is not opposed by Ld. Counsel for respondent. In view of the oral prayer of Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the instant petition be treated as an appeal.
Ahlmad is directed to register the petition as an appeal. Accordingly, it has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.16A/2015.
Arguments heard.
Put up at 4.00 PM for orders.
(RAKESH KUMAR1)
ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS)
(West) Delhi/04.09.2015
04.09.2015 (at 4.00 PM)
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, appeal of the appellants stand disposed off.
TCR alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court for information.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR1) ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS) (West) Delhi/04.09.2015 Sardar Pyara Singh & Anr. Vs. Sh. Gurbax Singh Birdi (CR No.16A/2015) Page No.6 of pages 6