Delhi District Court
Surbhi Chahda vs Rajiv Chada on 13 March, 2012
Cri. Rev. No.167/2/11
Surbhi Chahda Vs Rajiv Chada
13.03.2012
Pre: None for the revisionist.
Respondent in person.
Vide separate order placed along side in the file, revision
petition does not deserve any merit to succeed at this stage.
Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent
to the ld. trial court. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial court on
16.03.2012. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(WEST02):DELHI
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02) , DELHI.
Criminal Rev. No.167/2/11
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Surbhi Chadha w/o Rajiv Chadha
D/o Shiv Dutt Khanna
R/o 1782, Second Floor,
Rani Bagh, New Delhi
..............Revisionist
Versus
Rajiv Chadha s/o N S Chadha
R/o 562, Ist Floor, Rishi Nagar,
Rani Bagh, New Delhi.
................Respondent
13.03.2012
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of revision petition filed by the revisionist against the interim maintenance order dated 05.08.2011 passed by ld.
MM, Delhi (hereafter referred as impugned order) in the case titled as "Surbhi Chadha Vs Rajeev Chadha" whereby ld. trial court has ordered 2 to pay Rs.2500/ per month towards the maintenance of minor child namely Master Lavnya w.e.f. 02.01.2009.
2. Briefly the factual matrix of revision petition is that case titled as Surbhi Chadha Vs Rajeev Chadha" u/s 125 Cr. PC has been filed against the respondent by the revisionist before ld. trial Court. It is an admitted fact that revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. It is also an admitted case that there is a child born out of the present wedlock who is presently in the care and custody of the revisionist.
There are various allegations and counter allegations pending between the parties which would be decided at the final stage after recording evidence in trial court. Ld. trial Court seeing the purpose of section 125 Cr.PC which is to prevent vagrancy to the wife, it was held that ,minor child is entitled to claim interim maintenance. Ld. Trial Court declined to grant any maintenance in favour of revisionist especially considering the concealments of facts by her. Ld. trial court is of the opinion that first parties should be called to lead their evidence and only thereafter maintenance can be decided. Feeling aggrieved 3 with the impugned order this revision petition has been filed by the revisionist.
3. Arguments were heard. Ld. counsel for the revisionist submitted that vide Ld. MM court order dt. 05.08.2011, the interim maintenance was granted in respect of child of the revisionist at the rate of Rs.2500/ per month from date of filing of petition. She submitted that she has filed this revision petition for setting aside the order and also prayed for grant of maintenance to revisionist no.1 at the rate of Rs.25,000/ per month. She further submitted that proceedings with regard to maintenance are pending in the court of Sh. R.B. Singh, under section 24 of HMA, in the court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Ld. MM under Domestic Violence Act and another case in the court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Ld. MM under section 125 Cr.P.C. She further submitted that the maintenance can only be granted in one not in all. She has also relied upon the case titled as Puneet Kaur Vs Inderjit Singh Sawhney, (2011) DMC 487, and submitted that claims of interim maintenance can be 4 decided as per the standard laid down in this judgment, which is as under: "6. While considering a claim for interim maintenance, the court has to keep in mind the status of the parties, reasonable wants of the applicant, the income and property of the applicant. Conversely, requirements of the non applicant, the income and property of the non applicant and additionally the other family members to be maintained by the non applicant have to be taken into all. Whilst it is important to insure that the maintenance awarded to the applicant is sufficient to enable the applicant to live in somewhat the same degree of comfort as in the matrimonial home, but it should not be so exorbitant that the non applicant is unable to pay.
7. Maintenance awarded cannot be punitive. It should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style she/he enjoyed in the matrimonial home. It should not expose the non applicant to unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On the other hand, maintenance should not be so low so as to make the order meaningless."
4. Contrary to it, ld. counsel for the respondent filed written submissions and submitted that interim maintenance was not granted qua the revisionist till the determination of the rights of the parties by way of evidence. He has filed the copy of reply filed before the trial court along with other material. He has also relied upon the following citations:
i) Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs State & Anr. 2010 (118) DRJ 385, wherein it has been held that: 5 "4. A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance. It only enables the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws. While, the Act specifies the duties and functions of protection officer, police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility providers and duties of Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband or the duties of wife. Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to the wife. Under prevalent laws i.e. Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C a husband is supposed to maintain his unearning spouse out of the income which he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. If the husband was BSc. and Masters in Marketing Management from Pondicherry University, the wife was MA Crl.M.C.No. 491/2009 Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. v. The State & Anr. Page 4 of 6 (English) & MBA. If the husband was working as a Manager abroad, the wife with MBA degree was also working in an MNC in India. Under these circumstances, fixing of maintenance by the Court without there being even a prima facie proof of the husband being employed in India and with clear proof of the fact that the passport of the husband was seized, he was not permitted to leave country, (the bail was given with a condition that he shall keep visiting Investigating Officer as and when called) is contrary to law and not warranted under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the parents and maintain wife. The parents had done their duty of educating them and now they Crl.M.C.No. 491/2009 Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. v. The State & 6 Anr. Page 5 of 6 cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up and must take care of themselves.
6. It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence. Marriages do fail for various other reasons. The difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted in Courts. Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in marriages and in averments made before the Courts.
ii) Ashwani Makin Vs Neelam Makin 1993 Rajdhani Law Reports (note) 88, wherein it has been observed that : "Respondent had sued petitioner for divorce u/s 12(1) (a) & 13 (1)
(a) of H M Act and she made an application for interim maintenance alleging that appellant was earning Rs.25,000/ per month. He replied that he was earning only Rs.1000/ p.m. Husband had produced income tax record. Trial Court ignored this and imagined his income to be Rs.5000/ and fixed maintenance at Rs.1000/. He challenged this order in High Court where it was held that wife has not appeared in spite of service and that parties had not given enough material to trial Court to determine income of husband. On the slender material fixation is excessive and same is reduced Rs.500/ p.m."
iii)Smt. Ashok Ram Vs Rattan Lal - 1990 RLR 123, wherein it has been held that: "In application for maintenance u/s 24 spouse who has special knowledge of income must given evidence of same. Wife also must not give an imaginary figure. If husband has to support his parents and others then this must be given due weight. Trial Court must not arbitrarily fix a sum but must given reasons."
iv)Amit Khanna Vs Priyanaka Khanna & Ors in Crl. MC no. 4066/09 & Crl. M A no.13807/09, in this case it has been observed that : "4. After attaining self sufficiency and being employed, a man's own income has to be the basis for fixing maintenance for his dependants whether wife, parents or children. Properties of his 7 brothers or parents cannot be a basis for fixing maintenance. Status of a man is not determined from the status of his brothers or parents. There may be many cases where a man is egoistic and does not take help from his rich parents or rich brother and does not maintain same status which his rich brother and parents may maintain."
v) Harminder Kaur Vs Harvinder Singh Baweja - 123 (2005) Delhi Law Times 704, wherein it has been observed that: "8. The learned ADJ after mentioning the contentions of both the parties and the plea of the husband that he was ready to maintain the child provided custody of the child was given to him and that a petition for custody is already pending under the Guardians and Wards Act. Learned trial Judge has also referred to the incomes and savings of each party. According to the salary slip of the husband, his total pay is Rs. 30,436/ out of which Rs. 19,296/ is deducted on various accounts in which Rs. 5,000/ is the provident fund, Rs. 120 for CGHS and the learned Trial Court assessed his income at Rs. 25,000/per month. The Trial Court also noted that the wife was paying Rs. 30,000/ to her employees to run the clinic and she has to spend money on the laboratory also. Her income returns show her income as Rs. 8,000/ per month. Keeping in view the contention of the parties, the prima facie evidence and the precedents the learned ADJ has assessed her income to be about Rs. 16,000/ and odd.
10. Learned Counsel for the husband has tried to go into the minute details of the income and expenditure of the parties and has stated that the husband has to look after his old parents, though admittedly he has another brother also. While learned Counsel for the wife has highlighted as to how the wife has to face a large number of Court cases and then there are obstructions and annoyance being created by the husband in her practice because he and his parents are living on first floor and the basement is also with them. Such situation has ruined her practice. Needless to say that while disposing of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Court has only to take a prima facie view regarding the income and expenditure of the parties and has to fix the maintenance depending upon the status, family background, qualifications and social circle, etc. Considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned 8 order. The learned trial Judge has based his order on established precedents. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case."
vi)Sayali Phatak Vs Vasant Pathak - 1 (2004) DMC 632, wherein it has been observed that: "3. Interim maintenance is not granted as a penalty against either of the spouses. It is intended to ensure that the parties maintain a standard of living that is in close consonance with that enjoined by them as a family prior to the outbreak of their matrimonial differences and discord. Maintenance is not granted to enjoy an opulent life style. It is trite to state that the disposable incomes of both the spouses should first be calculated by a reasonable approximation and not a mathematical certainty. In the present case the Husband is a Captain in the Merchant Navy and submits that because of the nature of his work he is employed for six months out of the year. At the present stage of the litigation it will be fair to assume that the Wife earns approximately Rs. 40,000/ per month whereas the Husband earns Rs. 1,00,000/ per month. The Court would next have to assess the outgoings and liabilities of the respective spouses. Although the Husband has stated that he has aged parents to look after, his father is a retired Air Force Officer owning his own property, and surely enjoying a Government pension. There is nothing exceptional on the record to indicate that the Husband has to defray the expenses of his Parents out of necessity or some adverse quirk of fate. There is also nothing on the record to show the dependence of the sister on the Husband on him. His disposable income would, therefore, be around Rs.1,00,000/."
vii)Rajinder Singh Saluja Vs Sarbjyot Saluja & Ors. 159 (2009) DLT 629, wherein it has been observed that : "We find that taking into consideration, the income of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has taken care in fixing the maintenance amount. It cannot be lost sight of that the present FAO (OS) No. 119/2008 Page 5 of 10 stage is one for determining interim maintenance and it is not possible to work out an exact amount as evidence is yet to be led. The amount fixed is even higher than the income reflected in the income tax 9 returns of the appellant. In this behalf, the learned Judge has considered the Profit and Loss Account of the business. Income tax returns cannot be completely ignored as it is the function of the department to assess the income of an assessee. It has powers to determine higher amount if income is not disclosed. Be that as it may, given the prevalent position, the courts have been taking a more liberal view in determining the maintenance keeping the general trend in mind that at times, the income tax return does not reflect the full income of an assessee. Even this benefit has been made available to the respondents in the present case while determining the interim maintenance."
viii)Iqbal Kaur Vs Gurdev Singh - 71 (1998) DLT 277, wherein it has been observed that: "(7) Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the interim maintenance to the petitioner/wife as granted ought to be raised by a sum of Rs. 650.00 p.m., making it a total ofRs.850.00 p.m. This coupled with the payment of Rs. 80,000.00 of which the petitioner could be earning interest will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that instead of the sum of Rs. 200.00 p.m. w.e.f. 22.2.1991, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum ofRs.850.00 p.m. w.e.f. 22.2.1991. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is aged about 60 years and is not in a very good financial position. The respondent may clear the arrears of maintenance in 16 equal monthly installments. The maintenance w.e.f. 1.1.1998 shall be paid on or before the 7th of each month in advance to the petitioner. The revision petition is allowed and disposed of with the above directions."
ix)Puran Chand Saini Vs Mithlesh Saini - 46 (1992) DLT 161, wherein it has been observed that : "(8) It is directed that in meantime the petitioner shall continue to pay Rs. 150.00 p.m. as interim measure to the wife, which is subject to final order on merits and without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties."
x) Sushma Khanna Vs Suresh Khanna - AIR 1982 Delhi 176, wherein it has been held that : 10 "Learned counsel for the respondent however submits that the respondent is under an obligation to maintain his parents u/s 125 of the Cr. P.C. Whether any maintenance is paid or not to the parents is immaterial, but he is under an obligation to maintain them if they are unable to maintain themselves. Considering the facts of this case the trial court has rightly determined the monthly maintenance of Rs. 450.00out of the disposable income of Rs. 1537.00. There is no ground to increase the monthly maintenance.
xi)Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita - 154 (2008) DLT 505, wherein it ha been held that:
7. The maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of actual earnings of a person and not on his being able bodied person. In this country, there is no job guarantee given by the government to every able bodied person. Many able bodied persons are jobless in our country. The only job guarantee is under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme under which 100 days labour work is assured to an unemployed rural person. The husband does not qualify for that. Moreover, the wife is equally able bodied. The wife has failed to show, in this case, any earning of the husband. She did not dispute the facts stated that the van was sold by her, the house was sold by her and she was facing a case filed by the father of the husband in respect of illegal sale of the house. The amount received from sale of the house is with the wife and she must be earning interest on it. She has failed to show any source of income to the husband. The bald allegation of his doing tuition without stating as to what was his educational qualification and to whom he was teaching, would not serve the purpose.
8. I find that the order of the learned ADJ was based on no material and was simply made on the ground that the husband was an able bodied person. The order of maintenance is not tenable and is hereby set aside. However, the husband is liable to pay the litigation expenses as fixed by the trial Court."
xii)Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal II (2000) DMC 170, wherein it has been held that: "In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted: Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose 11 of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C. M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service ? It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient congent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice verssa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, site idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a 'dole' to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself That 12 cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.
8. In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. The spouses who are quarelling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible and, therefore, grant of luxurious, excessive facilities by way of pendente lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged. Even then, if the spouses do not think of amicable settlement, the Matrimonial Courts should dispose of the matrimonial petitiorisas early as possible. The Matrimonial Courts have to keep it in mind that the quarells between the spouses create dangerous impact on minds of their offsprings of such wedlocks. The offsprings do not understand as to where they should see ? towards father or towards mother ? By seeing them both fighting, making allegations against each other, they get bewildered. Such bewilderedness and loss of affection of parents is likely to create a trauma on their minds and brains. This frustration amongst children of tender ages is likely to create complications which would ruin their future. They cannot be exposed to such danger on account of such fighting parents.
9. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore, no variation or modification in it is necessary though this revision petition stands dismissed. The Matrimonial Court is hereby directed to decide the matrimonial petition which is pending amongst these two spouses as early as possible. The Matrimonial Court is directed to submit monthwise report about the progress of the said matrimonial petition to this Court so as to secure a continuous, unobstructed progress of matrimonial petition. No order as to costs. The amount of pendente lite alimony payable to Mamta Jaiswal by husband Rajesh Jaiswal should be deposited by him within a month by counting the date from the date of order. The failure on this aspect would result in dismissal of his matrimonial petition. He should continue payment of Rs. 400/ per month to his daughter Ku. Diksha Jaiswal right from the date of presentation of application of her maintenance i.e. 14.5.1998.
13That has to be also deposited within a month. He may take out sufficient money for that from his savings or take a loan from some good concern or loan granting agencies. Failure in this aspect also would result in dismissal of his petition. C.C."
xiii)Kakali Mukherjee Vs Gautam Mukherjee - II (2000) DMC 174 Calcutta High Court, wherein it has been held that: "Thus, in my opinion, the provision contained in Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code applies squarely to a proceeding for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As regards the second contention raised by Mr. Banerjee I find that on the basis of allegations made in the pleading as well as in the application under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code the trial court has merely passed a direction for preliminary enquiry under the provision contained in Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code. The final decision on such enquiry is yet to come. The order Impugned. in my opinion, cannot be said to be a case decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code nor can it be said that the petitioner has suffered any Irreparable loss and injury nor has the said order occasioned a failure of justice.
Under the aforesaid circumstances I find no force in the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Banerjee. Both the points raised by Mr. Banerjee having failed, the revisional application is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be however no order as to costs."
xiv)Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria Cri. MC no. 130/10 & Crl. M A No.504/10, wherein it has been observed that: "3. It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track. If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has 14 not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the woman has already moved Court and her right of maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for any enhancement of maintenance Crl.M.C.No. 130/2010 Page 2 of 3 already granted, she will have to move the same Court and she cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance. This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed."
5. Having gone through the submissions of both the parties. I am of the view that ld. trial court has passed the impugned order in respect of minor child, who is entitled to claim interim maintenance. Ld. Trial Court has not granted any interim maintenance in favour of revisionist especially considering the concealment of facts made by her. Ld. trial court was of the opinion that first parties should be called to lead their evidence and only thereafter maintenance can be decided. In view of this state of affairs I am of the view that the dispute between the parties is yet to be determined in accordance with law by the court concerned on the basis of evidence to be produced by each of the parties. The proceedings of trial are also to be concluded therefore, in absence of determination of facts the interim maintenance to the revisionist is not maintainable under the present facts and circumstances of the case precisely for the reasons that the court of original jurisdiction has a sole discretion to determine the facts.
However, this court has limited jurisdiction to enter into the domain of ld. MM on the basis of propriety and correctness. In this regard, I 15 have also gone through the citations relied upon by the ld. counsel for the respondents briefly and precisely in view of the citations i.e.
1.Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs State & Anr. 2010 (118) DRJ 385;
2.Ashwani Makin Vs Neelam Makin 1993 Rajdhani Law Reports (note) 88; 3.Smt. Ashok Ram Vs Rattan Lal - 1990 RLR 123; 4.Amit Khanna Vs Priyanaka Khanna & Ors in Crl. MC no.4066/09 & Crl. M A no.13807/09;
5.Harminder Kaur Vs Harvinder Singh Baweja - 123 (2005) Delhi Law Times 704; 6.Sayali Phatak Vs Vasant Pathak - 1 (2004) DMC 632;
7.Rajinder Singh Saluja Vs Sarbjyot Saluja & Ors. 159 (2009) DLT 629;
8.Iqbal Kaur Vs Gurdev Singh - 71 (1998) DLT 277; 9.Puran Chand Saini Vs Mithlesh Saini - 46 (1992) DLT 161; 10.Sushma Khanna Vs Suresh Khanna - AIR 1982 Delhi 176; 11.Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita - 154 (2008) DLT 505; 12.Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal II (2000) DMC 170;
13.Kakali Mukherjee Vs Gautam Mukherjee - II (2000) DMC 174 Calcutta High Court; and 14.Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria Cri. MC no.
130/10 & Crl. M A No.504/10 discussed (supra) revision petition does not deserve any merit to succeed at this stage. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. trial court.
Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13.03.2012 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02):DELHI 16