Delhi District Court
Sukhdev Singh vs . State on 3 March, 2010
-:1:- Cr.R.No.35/08
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State
IN THE COURT OF SH.R.P.PANDEY : ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE :
OUTER(II) ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No.35/08
Sh.Sukhdev Singh,
s/o Sh.Harbans Singh,
R/o H.No.WZ-B-49,Vishnu Garden Part-I
Tilak Nagar,,
New Delhi
......PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State (NCT OF DELHI)
2. Smt.Kulwinder Kaur
W/o Sh.Sukhdev Singh
D/o Sh.Dalvinder Singh
3. Master Harpreet Singh
(through mother-Smt.Kulwinder Kaur-
respondent no.2)
R/o H.No.H-38, Sant Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018
......RESPONDENTS
Date of filing petition : 27.08.08
Date on which arguments heard: 02.02.10
Date of order/judgment : 03.03.10
-:2:- Cr.R.No.35/08
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State
ORDER:-
1. By this order I proceed to dispose of revision petition filed by petitioner u/s 397 of Cr.PC against order dated 09.07.08 (for short referred to as impugned order) allowing application filed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 u/s 127 Cr.PC for enhancement of interim maintenance awarded vide order dated 07.01.02.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is husband of respondent no.2 and father of respondent no.3, who is a minor son. A petition was filed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 u/s 125 Cr.PC in the court of Ld. MM alongwith an application for grant of interim maintenance and said application was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.02 directing petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.400/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as Ld. MM assessed monthly -:3:- Cr.R.No.35/08 Sukhdev Singh Vs. State income of petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month.
3. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 moved yet another application u/s 127 Cr.PC for enhancement of interim maintenance which was disposed of by impugned order increasing interim maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,500/- per month for respondent No.2 and from Rs.400/- to Rs.700/- per month for respondent No.3 after assessing the income of petitioner @ Rs.4,500/- per month as against income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. averred by petitioner.
4. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds that there was no logic or rational in assessing the monthly income of petitioner herein @ Rs.4,500/- and even if it is so presumed the direction for payment of Rs.2,200/- towards maintenance to both the respondents is out of proportion.
5. I have heard Mr.Jagdish Singh, ld. counsel for the petitioner -:4:- Cr.R.No.35/08 Sukhdev Singh Vs. State and Mr.Akhil, Ld. counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and perused the trial court record.
6. The Ld. counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an electrician having a small shop in Vishnu Garden area where due to sealing of shops the work and earnings of petitioner have been adversely affected but Ld MM has failed to take note of this fact and re-assessed his income @ Rs.4,500/- p.m. as against the existing income of Rs.3,000/- which was assessed while passing the earlier order dated 07.01.02. He has further submitted that assessment of increase in income is hypothetical and without basis. I find that order assessing income of petitioner at Rs.3,000/- was done vide order dated 07.01.02 and the impugned order enhancing it by 50% was passed on 09.07.08 i.e. after 6 ½ years. Thus, it was not unreasonable on the part of Ld. MM to assess the income of petitioner working as Electrician at Rs.4,500/- p.m. because even the income of a daily wage earner also increased at least to that extent with the -:5:- Cr.R.No.35/08 Sukhdev Singh Vs. State passage of time. Thus, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in assessment of income of petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month.
7. The second limb of argument of Ld.counsel for the petitioner is that enhancement of interim maintenance payable to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from Rs.400/- each to Rs.1,500/- and Rs.700/- respectively, is highly disproportionate even if income of the petitioner is presumed at Rs.4,500/- for the sake of arguments. He has further submitted that if the cost of living has gone up for the respondents it is same for the petitioner as well. Even this argument does not appeal to me because still the amount of monthly interim maintenance granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 together, does not exceed 50% of the income of petitioner as assessed by Ld. MM. I agree with submission of Ld.counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 that the earlier order was passed by Ld. MM on 07.01.02 granting interim maintenance of Rs.400/- when the limit was Rs.500/- each only which -:6:- Cr.R.No.35/08 Sukhdev Singh Vs. State was removed by subsequent amendment in Cr.PC.
8. Under such circumstances, I do not find any impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by Ld. MM which call for intervention by this court under Section 397 Cr.PC.
9. Nothing said herein would tantamount to expression of opinion on merits of the case.
10. TCR be sent back to the Ld.Trial Court with a copy of order and revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open ( R.P.PANDEY )
Court on 03.03.10 Addl.Sessions Judge(02)
Rohini Courts : Delhi
-:7:- Cr.R.No.35/08
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State
03.03.10
Present- Petitioner in person.
Sh.Ram Pyara, Ld.Addl.PP for State-respondent No.1. Father of respondent no.2.
Vide separate order, the revision petition filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
TCR be sent back with copy of order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
( R.P.PANDEY ) ASJ : ROHINI : DELHI 04.01.10