Delhi District Court
Inderjit & Ors vs Jyoti & Anr. Cr No.262/18 on 12 November, 2018
Inderjit & Ors Vs Jyoti & Anr. CR No.262/18
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH YADUVANSHI, ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
C.R. No. 262/18
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh Inderjit,
S/o Sh Shukhar Chand,
R/o House No. 488, A/2,
Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahadara,
New Delhi110032. ....... Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Jyoti
D/o Suraj Pal,
W/o Inderjeet
2. Km. Raashi (minor aged 3),
D/o Inderjeet, through her
Mother & Natural Guardian
Smt Jyoti.
Both R/o T315/08,
Baljit Nagar, Patel Nagar,
Delhi110008. ...... Respondents
Result: Petition Dismissed. Page 1 of 4
Inderjit & Ors Vs Jyoti & Anr. CR No.262/18 Date of Institution : 29.08.2018 Date of arguments : 12.11.2018 Date of Judgment : 12.11.2018 JUDGMENT ON REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C.
1. In the order impugned in these proceedings dated 31.5.2018, the ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of Income Affidavits on record, the Respondentwife being a housewife has no income of her own to look after the needs and expenses of herself as well as her minor daughter now aged 5 years being respondent no. 2 herein. It further held that the facts reveal that the petition is silent regarding his (Husband's) exact occupation in his Income Affidavit but he is working as a Sweeper having income of Rs.8,000/ per month. This amount is shown as Rs.10,000/ per month in his Income Affidavit.
2. Holding that the petitioner is an 'unskilled labour', his income was assessed as Rs.13,350/ per month in accordance of the Minimum Wages Rules. A fixed share of it i.e. Rs.3,337/ per Result: Petition Dismissed. Page 2 of 4 Inderjit & Ors Vs Jyoti & Anr. CR No.262/18 month was awarded as interim maintenance for both the respondents.
3. I have been taken through the grounds which are mentioned in the Memorandum of the Revision Petition.
4. The order which has been impugned in these proceedings has been passed under Section 23 (2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) which makes it an order against which only an appeal lies under the provisions of Section 29 of the D.V. Act. It is an order which affects the right of the parties specifically and is not an order against which revision petition will lie. Reference in this respect may had to the judgment in Charu Chawla Vs R.K Anand & Anr. 2018 (3) LRC 483 Del where it is held that interlocutory orders which deal only with procedure and which did not affect the rights of a party will certainly not fall within the sweep of expression 'order' in Section 29 of the Act. It was held that order to be appealable, has to affect or have a material reflection on the rights of the parties. Thus, what is meant is that the revision petition can be brought in this Court against such orders passed under the D.V Act which do not affect or Result: Petition Dismissed. Page 3 of 4 Inderjit & Ors Vs Jyoti & Anr. CR No.262/18 have a material reflection on the right of parties.
5. No plea has been made before me that the present petition may be treated as an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V Act.
6. Having regard to the above and the law as discussed in Charu Chawla (Supra), the present Revision Petition does not lie under Section 397 Cr.P.C against the impugned order which is an order under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed being not maintainable.
7. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court/its successor Court for intimation alongwith Trial Court record.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the date already fixed.
9. File of revision be consigned to record room after all necessary compliances.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( MANISH YADUVANSHI ) COURT ON : 12.11.2018. ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADUVANSHI
YADUVANSHI Date: 2018.11.14
15:48:17 +0530
Result: Petition Dismissed. Page 4 of 4